Back
2002 Supreme(All) 1259
High Court Of Allahabad
S.K.Singh, J.
Vivek Kumar
Vs.
Vice Chancellor, B.H.U.
C.M.W.P. No. 15358 of 20
Decided on: Sep 13, 2002
H.M.B.Sinha, A.K.Mishra, Shashi Nandan, V.K.Upadhya
The judgment established the need to differentiate between severe ragging and other misconduct, emphasizing the reformation-oriented approach to punishment.
Headnote:
Ragging - University Expulsion - Chapter 7, 8 of University Ordinances - The court considered the issue of severe ragging and its punishment, emphasizing the need to curb ragging and maintain discipline. It referred to the definition of ragging and preventive measures provided in the Ordinances. The court distinguished between severe ragging and other misconduct, concluding that the expulsion for all time to come was not justified in the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a bright student, was expelled from the university for alleged severe ragging. The incident involved misconduct with a fellow student. The petitioner sought a lenient view due to his academic record and future prospects.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the expulsion for all time to come was not justified as the incident did not amount to severe ragging. It considered the petitioner's academic record, lack of prior complaints, and the impact of the expulsion on his future.
Issues: The main issue was whether the expulsion for severe ragging was justified or if a lesser punishment should be awarded based on the university's Ordinances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the incident did not constitute severe ragging and distinguished it from other misconduct. It considered the preventive measures for ragging and the need for a reformation-oriented approach to punishment.
Final Decision: The court quashed the expulsion order and directed that the petitioner be permitted to appear and complete his VIIIth semester in the next examination.
S. K. Singh, J.
1. PRAYER in this petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of the opposite party No. 1 dated 20.4.2001 (Annexure-9) to the writ petition. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner has been expelled from the Banaras Hindu University and has been debarred from pursuing any course of study or appearing at any entrance test of the University or taking any employment whatsoever in the university with immediate effect.
2. SUMMARY of the facts dealing the issue can be summarized. When the impugned action against the petitioner came into existence, he happened to be a student of last semester, i.e., VIIIth semester of B. Tech. Chemical Engineering. The petitioner was selected for the aforesaid B. Tech. Chemical Engineering course in the Institute of Technology in the Banaras Hindu University on his performance in the admission test conducted on all India basis. Petitioner states that he has a good academic record as in the High School and Intermediate examinations conducted by the U. P. Board, he has secured 79% and 76% marks respectively. Petitioner claims that he has passed out all the semesters regularly with good performance. It is in respect to an incident which is said to have taken place in the night of 24/25th March, 2001, in which the petitioner and one Gaurav Anand committed a misconduct with a fellow student, namely, Siddharth Sinha, on a complaint having been made by the aforesaid Sri Sinha, the disciplinary proceedings started, which has resulted into expulsion of Gaurav Anand for one year from the university and expulsion of the petitioner for all the time to come. It is this action of the respondents which is under challenge before this Court.
3. AT the very outset, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned advocate assisted by Sri H. M. B. Sinha, advocate submitted before the Court that so far the charges as levelled against the petitioner, as has been found to be proved by the enquiry committee, petitioner is not joining the issue and it is on the facts and circumstances and various kinds of situations which is being argued before this Court, he submits that the petitioner is entitled to get a lenient view from the Court considering the petitioner's future who admittedly happens to be a bright student having a very excellent career. In view of this, so far the merits of the charges and its proof is concerned, the Court is not required to go into the pleadings challenging the propriety of the enquiry proceedings or lack of opportunity and so on which has resulted into the impugned action.
4. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happened to be a meritorious student. He secured first division marks in the High School and Intermediate examinations. He has been selected for this technical course in an admission test on all India basis. Petitioner passed out all the seven semesters with good performance. It is pointed out that there does not exist a single complaint of any kind, at any point of time during his long tenure running into seven semesters either during college hours or in the stay at the hostel except this solitary incident. LEARNED counsel further submits that the ground on which a severe penalty of expulsion for all the time to come has been taken, i.e., proof of the charge of severe ragging, is not established in the present case and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get a lesser punishment. It has been further submitted that during the course of enquiry proceedings, which started from 10.4.2001, petitioner has been permitted to appear in some papers of the VIIIth semester, i.e., on 16.4.2001, 17.4.2001 and 18.4.2001 and now as the petitioner has already suffered for more than 1-1/2 year, by taking a lenient view in the matter petitioner may be permitted to appear in the examination in the next semester so as to complete his course.
5. SRI V. K. Upadhyay, learned advocate who represents the Banaras Hindu University on
