IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
Sampath Karthikeya Busa and Another – Petitioners
Versus
University Grants Commission and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos. 42437, 42467, 43364 of 2022
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Telangana Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 - Sections 4(i) 4(ii) 4(iii) – Student – Suspension - Ground of misconduct and indiscipline - Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a private educational institution which is recognized as a deemed to be university by the University Grants Commission – Held, Petitioners herein were suspended indefinitely as an FIR was registered against them - Suspension in present case entails serious consequences whereby Petitioners cannot attend classes at Respondent No. 2’s campus - An action where there is an indefinite suspension is penal in nature and must be followed with an enquiry in light of principles of natural justice - Suspension cannot be indefinite without conduct of an enquiry - Even otherwise, Rule 5 provides that an order imposing any penalty under Part IV should be based on findings of Disciplinary Committee constituted under Rule 12 - Rule 10 cannot be relied upon by Respondent No. 2 to contend that principles of natural justice are not applicable for suspension pending enquiry and trial - Writ petitions are disposed off
ORDER :
1. The present writ petitions arise out of the same set of facts. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of vide the following common order.
2. Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, Sri Pramod Singh and Smt. Sowjanya Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Megha Rani Agarwal, learned standing counsel appearing for University Grants Commission, learned Government Pleader for Higher Education and Sri P.S.S. Kailashnath, learned counsel appearing for ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education/ICFAI University. Perused the record.
3. For the sake of convenience, the description of the parties in the present order is according to W.P. No. 42467 of 2022.
Facts of the case in W.P. No. 42467 and 42437 of 2022:
4. The case involves suspension of Petitioners herein from Respondent No. 2 University (ICFAI University) on the alleged ground of misconduct and indiscipline. An alleged ragging incident took place in Respondent No. 2’s campus wherein a first-year law student was assaulted by a group of senior students from the business management college of Respondent No. 2.
5. According to the Petitioners, they supported the student who was subjected to ragging by reporting the said incident to the authorities. Later, the victim of ragging filed a complaint with Shankarpally Police Station and on 11.11.2022, a crime bearing FIR No. 506 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 450, 342 and 506 read with 149 of IPC, and Sections 4(i) 4(ii) 4(iii) of Telangana Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 against the people involved in the alleged ragging.
6. Subsequently, the father of one of the accused in FIR No. 506 of 2022 lodged a complaint against the Petitioners herein and the said complaint was registered as FIR No. 508 of 2022 dated 12.11.2022 for the offences under Sections 342, 324 and 506 of IPC. In the said complaint, it is alleged that on 03.11.2022, the Petitioners herein physically assaulted and injured the complainant’s son and his two friends.
7. Based on the registration of FIR No. 508 of 2022, Respondent No. 2 issued orders of suspension dated 18.11.2022 under Rule 7 (iii) r/w Rule 9 of the IFHE Students’ Conduct and Discipline Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’). Vide the said suspension orders, the Petitioners herein were immediately suspended from the class/ department/college/hostel/mess/library/lab and from availing any other facility until further notice. Therefore, the Petitioners have challenged suspension orders dated 18.11.2022 and sought that the same be set aside.
8. Contentions of the Petitioners:
(ii) The Petitioners could not have been suspended on the ground of mere registration of FIR. Reliance was placed on Ankita Kailash Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 10 SCC 670.
(iii) The FIR against the Petitioners was registered as a counterblast to FIR registered against the accused of ragging in FIR No. 506 of 2022.
(iv) Respondent No. 2 unilaterally suspended the Petitioners herein without following the principles of natural justice. No disciplinary committee under Part V of the Rules was constituted and no opportunity of hearing was granted. Reliance was placed on Board of Technical Education, U.P. vs. Dhanwantri Kumar, AIR 1991 SC 271, Board of High School and Intermediate Education vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 36 and Jiby P. Chacko vs. Principal, Mediciti School of Nursing, Ghanpur, Ranga Reddy District, 2002 SCC Online A.P. 126.
9. Contentions of Respondent No. 2:
A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India
Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. C.P. Sebastian
Ankita Kailash Khandelwal vs. State of Maharashtra
A. Raghavan vs. D.E.O. Attingal
Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust vs. V.R. Rudani
Board of High School vs. Ghanshyam
Board of Technical Education, U.P. vs. Dhanwantri Kumar
Charanlal Sahu vs. Union of India
Election Commission of India vs. Saka Venkata Rao
Ganesh Chandra Saha vs. Jiw Raj Somani
Janet Jeyapaul vs. SRM University
Karnataka Public Service Commission vs. B.M. Vijayashanker
K.K. Saksena vs. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
K. Krishnamacharyulu vs. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs. K.S. Gandhi
Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar
Praga Tools Corporation vs. C.A. Imanual
Ramakrishna Mission vs. Kago Kunya
Rattan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee
Suspension of an employee must be justified by a strong prima facie case of misconduct involving moral turpitude; arbitrary actions violate constitutional rights.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against a private unaided minority educational institution. A service dispute in the private realm involving a priva....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a service dispute involving a private educational institution and its employee is not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitut....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's power to terminate services under Rule 15(ii) of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appe....
Disciplinary proceedings must follow due process, including proper inquiry and adherence to principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner, as an employee of a school with a public element in imparting education, was entitled to avail the remedy under Article 226 of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.