Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
G. P. Singh, C. J. and Faizanuddin, J.
U.P.SINGH - Appellant
Versus
BOARD OF GOVERNORS, MACT, BHOPAL - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 438 Of 1981
Decided On : 08/26/1981
(2) Natural Justice - immediate action needed - delinquent not available for being heard -show cause notice pasted on notice board - no denial of natural justice.
The situation after the incident in the college campus was tense and immediate action was needed. A search for the petitioners was made but none of them was available in the college campus. The petitioners were absconding. The Committee had with it the first information report and the two statements in the form of letters of Bharil and Shastri and acting upon them the Committee recommended the expulsion of four of the petitioners Having regard to the situation that was created by the incident and the fact that the petitioners were not available for being heard, it cannot be said that the expulsion order suffers from denial of natural justice Similar is the position with respect to the second expulsion order. On 13th February 1981 when the order was passed, effort was made to search the five students against whom action was proposed. They were not traceable in the college campus and so the notice to show cause was affixed on the notice board Having regard to the circumstances then prevailing, this was sufficient compliance with the rules of natural justice. If is well sealed that the application of the rules of natural justice depends upon the situation or circumstances existing at the time when their application is called for. What is to be seen is whether the action taken is fair and honest. AIR 1977 SC 965 and (1973) 3 All, ER 796 relied on. [Para 8
(3) Practice-ex post facto - when applies - it applies where no opportunity is given before action is taken. [Para 9
(4) Contract - relationship between students and college in absence of statute - is a contractual relationship governed by prospectus. [Para 10
(5) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - writ petition under - maintainability of - college not governed by any statute - expulsion under passed against student - petition maintainable if rules of natural justice are not followed.
A student can file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of an order of expulsion for acts of indiscipline if rules of natural justice have not been followed, even though there is no statute or statutory rule on the subject. [Para 10
( 1 ) THIS order shall also dispose of Misc. Petition No. 794 of 1981.
( 2 ) THE petitioners in these petitions were students of Maulana Azad College of Technology, Bhopal. which is a Re-gional College of Engineering and Technology. The college is are autonomous body and is managed by a Board of Governors. On 11th Feb. 1981, at about 4. 30 a. m. , an incident happened in the college Hostel in which some students were assaulted by a group of students. Rods, cycle chains and swords were freely used in this incident. One student, namely, O. S. Ekta, suffered serious injuries. His right hand was practically severed and it had to be amputated. Another student M. U. Qureshi MPHC) Page 2 of 5 also suffered serious injuries. Two other students, Rajnish Bharil and M. V. Section Shastri. were also assaulted and suffered minor injuries. The Proctorial Committee, which is presided over by the prin-cipal of the College with his concurrence, passed an order on 11th Feb. itself expelling from the college and hostel four of the petitioners, U. S. Singh, Jawahar Singh, Ajaysingh Gaur and S. S. Niranjan. By another order passed on 14th Feb. 1981, five more students, including the four remaining petitioners, M. G. Shrimali D. P. Gupta, N. K. Rathore, D. Section Gill and Rajesh Sharma, were expelled from the college and hostel. These orders mention that action against the petitioners was taken in connection with their grave involvement in the incident of 11th Feb. 1981 which resulted in serious injuries to some students. These are the orders which the petitioners challenge in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
( 3 ) THE first information report of the incident was lodged by Rajnish Bharil at 7 a. m. on nth Feb. 1981. A copy of the first information report was forwarded to the principal. Rajnish Bharil also gave a written statement in the form of a letter to the Principal on 11th Feb. 1981 in which the incident was described. M. V. S. Shastri also gave a similar letter on the same date to the Principal. All these three documents mention the names of the petitioners as forming the group who assaulted and caused injuries to Ekta, Qureshi, Bharil and Shastri. The proctorial Committee met at 11. 30 a. m. on 11th Feb. 1981 and recommended the expulsion of U. P. Singh, Jawahar Singh, Ajaysingh Gaur and J. Section Niranjan and decided to continue further investigation in respect of others. As already stated, the Principal is the Chairman of the Committee. The order was 'approved by him on 11th Feb. itself and the aforesaid four students were expelled. The Committee again met on 13th Feb. 1981 at 2. 30 p. m. The Committee suspended M. G. Shri-mali, D. P. Gupta, R. K. Rathore, D. Section Gill and Rajesh Sharma for their involvement in the incident. They were required to show cause why they should not be expelled. As they were not available in the college campus, the notice was pasted on the notice board. The Committee met again at 10 p. m. and resolved to expel the aforesaid five students also. Consequently, the second order of expulsion was passed with the approval of the Principal.
( 4 ) THERE is no statute or statutory rule on the subject of expulsion of students. The College issued a Frospec-' tus for the year 1980-81 which deals with many matters including the subject of students' discipline and punishment for acts of indiscipline. Clause 1 of para 3. 14 provides that students are expected to maintain a high standard of discipline. It also enumerates certain acts of indiscipline. The enumeration is illustrative. Clause VII of para 3. 14 provides for punishment for acts of indiscipline. This clause reads as follows: "vii. A student who is found to have committed any act of indiscipline is liable to any one or more of the following punishments:- (1) Warning (ii) Censure (iii) Fine (iv) Reduction/cancellation of Scholarship/ Stipend/fellowship (v) Recovery in part or full of losses or damages to the college property
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
