Educational institutions have the authority to maintain discipline and take action against students for serious acts of misconduct, and courts should be slow to interfere unless there is a flagrant breach of procedural law.

"Discipline is the hall mark of any educational institution and is the most needed quality in any citizen of this country", said a learned Judge of this Court in a decision AIR 1997 Mad 121 : (1996) Writ LR 647. The disciplinary action taken by the management of the third respondent college is questioned in the present writ petitions.

2. The petitioners are students of third respondent-Engineering College, On completion of their diploma course, they applied for B.E., in Anna University, Chennai and they were selected and admitted to B.E. (Electrical and Electronics Engineering course in the second year to the third respondent college.

According to them, they were admitted to the third respondent college under the government quota for the academic year 2007-08.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that along with their friends, they went out of the college around 10.00 a.m. and returned to the college at 3.00 p.m. They have signed the outgoing and incoming registers maintained by the hostel warden. They went for a treat given by one of their friends for a Birthday party at Sivagangai. The mess timing for the afternoon is 2.30 p.m. Since they came late, the mess people refused to serve food and there was a wordy quarrel. The mess master came there and directed the workers to give food. The petitioners had their lunch. When the warden came to the mess, he seized their cellphones which contained a photograph saying "cheers" while having drinks. On the next day, 3.00 p.m., suspension orders were served to the petitioners alleging misbehaviour. Immediately all of them gave a letter of apology stating that such incidents would not happen in future, Simultaneously, the petitioners' parents were summoned to meet the Principal. Accordingly, their parents met the Principal about 5.00 p.m., on 5.1.2009. The Principal told their parents and instructed them to advise the petitioners properly and asked them to sign in a piece of paper. Later on, it was found that the Principal, had issued Transfer Certificates to all the petitioners with an endorsement, "Discontinued." When the elders requested the Principal to take them back into the college, it was refused.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that though the third respondent college had assured that the petitioners would be re-inducted, they failed to do so. As the examinations for the sixth semester was scheduled on 8.3.2009, they are constrained to prefer the present writ petitions, challenging the action of the college in issuing the Transfer Certificates, and consequently prayed for a direction to withdraw the Transfer Certificates issued by the third respondent and allow them to continue their studies.

5. Refuting the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions, the Principal of the third respondent college, in his counter affidavit submitted that on 4.1.2009, Mr. Karthigaiselvam (petitioner in W.P (MD) No. 1967 of 2009) and four other students, viz., Mr. Maharaja (petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 2624 of 2009) (b) Mr. Anburajan, (c) Mr. G. Malaimurugan (petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 2625 of 2009) and (d) Mr. N. Naveen went out of the Hostel at 10.00 a.m., and returned to the college about 2.15 p.m., under intoxication. Thereafter, they went to the Canteen about 2.30 p.m., for lunch. The respondent has further submitted that the canteen employees supplied food for them. They quarrelled rudely with a lady canteen employee to parcel chicken for them for further consumption of alcohol in the college premises. The canteen employees informed the above incident to the canteen manager, who in turn informed the Deputy Wardens of the Hostel, viz., Mr. A. Sathasivam and Mr. A. Ayyanar. Thereafter, the Deputy Wardens enquired Mr. Karthigaiselvam, petitioner in W.P. No. 1967 of 2009 and four other students, viz., Mr. Maharaja (petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 2624 of 2009) (b) Mr. Anburajan (c) Mr. G. Malaimurugan (petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 2625 of 2009) and (d) Mr. N. Naveen. I