The importance of providing an opportunity for the accused to explain before making a final decision, and the need to maintain a peaceful atmosphere within the college campus.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned dismissal order dated 25.09.2019 in Na.Ka.No.2165/Aa/2019 passed by the third respondent, and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent to readmit the petitioner as student in 3rd year in English Department.)

1. The petitioner herein being dismissed from college while pursuing his final year B.A course, has filed this writ petition to quash the dismissal order dated 25.09.2019 and readmit him in the college.

2. According to the petitioner, he made representation to the college Principal regarding the class room violence in the campus caused by a Professor against a first year student. The college Principal refused to meet the students representative who demanded enquiry and action against the erred Professor. Instead of taking action against the Professor, the third respondent issued dismissal order as against the petitioner without enquiry. The said order is against the principles of natural justice.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arbitrarily removed from the college for participating in the democratic protest. The petitioner hails from lower strata of the society. If he is dismissed from college at the fag end of his course, his future will be affected.

4. Per contra, in the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, it is stated that, the petitioner during his 5th semester of the academic year had attended only 41 days out of 68 working days and abstained classes without any intimation. Claiming himself as the Secretary, All India Student Federation of India (ASFI) used to organise protest against the college administration causing unrest in the campus. Further, the petitioner has not paid the 5th semester fess before the cut off date.

5. Earlier, the petitioner gathered students and protested against the policies of the Government, in front of the college gate affecting the other students. Hence, the petitioner was advised not to indulge in activities which affect the welfare of the other students. The petitioner gave an undertaking on 03.07.2019 stating that he will not indulge in illegal activities against the college. In future, if he involve in such activities, the college can take action against him. In spite of the said undertaking, on 17.09.2019, at about 10.30 am, the petitioner along with four other students using filthy language protesting against the Government policy. When the third respondent/Principal advised the petitioner not to protest, the petitioner did not give up. On that day, the petitioner went to the other class rooms and asked the students to come out of the classes to join the protest. The petitioner was trying to use the college premises as the AISFI Union office.

6. In view of the above circumstances, the College Council met and unanimously decided to dismiss the petitioner from the college to protect the welfare of 3500 students pursuing their studies in the college. The respondents have also enclosed photocopies showing the petitioner along with few other students carrying banners and protesting inside the college campus.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Sundeep kumar (2011 (4) SCC 644) has pleaded that the college authorities should condone minor indiscretion made by the petitioner rather than imposing a capital punishment of dismissal.

8. Contrarily, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent referring the judgment of a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Kerala Students Union v. Sojar Francis, (2004 (2) KLJ 378) would submit that, right to participate in political activities inside the college campus disturbing the peace of the college administration and welfare of the other students is antithesis to Article 1