The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of discipline among students and the need to uphold the authority of educational institutions in maintaining a conducive learning environment.

The petitioners have filed these writ petitions, seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 06.03.2015, in and by which, the petitioners were dismissed from the college. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to readmit them in III year B.A., B.L., Degree course in 2014-2015 academic year in the 2nd respondent college and allow them to continue their studies.

2. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together for hearing for the purpose of disposal vide this common order. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from W.P.(MD) No.9323 of 2015, which read as follows:

i) The petitioner has submitted that he is doing his 3rd year in the 5 years B.A., B.L., Degree Course and whenever, there was protest in the interest of students, he also participated in it. While so, one Mrs. Krishnaleela, the Deputy Warden of the College Ladies Hostel exceeded her limit in the guise of checking girl students as to whether any student is having mobile phone in hostel, against which, the entire college went on strike. The petitioner also extended his fullest support to the said protest. Being enraged over his support in protest against her, the Assistant Professor / Deputy Warden had lodged a complaint on 14.09.2014 and an FIR also came to be registered in Crime No.65 of 2014 on the file of the Contonment All Women Police Station on 10.11.2014 on the allegation of receiving some obscene message to her mobile phone.

ii) He has further submitted that when the 5th semester examination was going on, his roommates, namely, Saravana Bava and Palanisamy were arrested at the college gate itself on 17.12.2014 for the reason the alleged message was sent by using the SIM card of Palanisamy and that they were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Trichy and remanded to judicial custody and that subsequently, they were released on bail. He has stated that though he was unaware of the entire episode, the enquiry committee insisted him to give a letter confessing the act of crime and due to their compulsion, he gave a letter on 08.01.2015 as dictated by the enquiry committee on the assurance that he will either be transferred to some other law college in the State or be imposed with certain conditions, but to the shock and surprise, he was suspended from the college on the very next day.

iii) He has also submitted that he was not an accused in the FIR and the veracity of the complaint can be ascertained only after the due investigation of the case and simply based on the FIR, an enquiry committee was appointed and the petitioner and other three were served with show cause notices dated 02.02.2015, calling upon them to respond to the same within 48 hours. However, after due extension of time, the petitioner submitted his reply on 09.02.2015. After receipt of replies, neither personal enquiry was conducted nor the complainant was examined as witness and without giving an opportunity to let their evidence to prove their innocence, the 2nd respondent has straightaway passed the impugned order, dismissed the petitioner and other three students from the college. Thus, the act of the 2nd respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice and though they met the 1st respondent seeking justice, their efforts ended in vain. The imposition of capital punishment of expelling him from the college is highly arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Though an interim enquiry report was submitted by the disciplinary committee on 09.01.2015, no final report has been submitted to the 2nd respondent by the committee.

iv) The submission of the petitioner is that only after completion of investigation, the real factum of registration of an FIR and exaggeration of the complainant's version will be known to all and that the 2nd respondent cannot pass the impugned order, when the criminal case is in the preliminary stage of investigation. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to set