Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 51456
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
JANEES SWALAH – Appellant
Versus
THE CALICUT UNIVERSITY – Respondent
WP(C)/2923/2022
BABU KARUKAPADATH, M.A. VAHEEDA BABU, P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC
Administrative bodies must adhere to procedural fairness and UGC Regulations when deciding severe penalties like dismissal to uphold the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Ragging - Dismissal of Student - UGC Regulations - Section 6(3) - Summary: The court emphasized adherence to the UGC Regulations on ragging, ensuring procedural fairness and natural justice before imposing severe penalties such as dismissal. The lack of proper notice and opportunity for the petitioner indicated procedural lapses undermining the dismissal order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a student dismissed for alleged ragging, argued that he was not properly notified or given a chance to defend himself, violating UGC Regulations. A prior criminal proceeding against him had been quashed, and he sought reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found merit in the petitioner's claims of procedural violations during the dismissal process, especially regarding the lack of proper notice and adherence to the UGC Regulations guiding anti-ragging procedures.
Issues: Whether the dismissal of the petitioner from college was legally justified, considering the alleged violations of the UGC Regulations and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that strict compliance with UGC Regulations is essential in disciplinary actions, particularly those involving severe consequences like dismissal, and procedural fairness must be observed.
Final Decision: The court directed the Vice-Chancellor to expeditiously decide on the pending appeal and consider all procedural aspects related to the petitioner’s dismissal.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein, a student pursuing the V Semester B.Com Computer Application course in the M.E.S Kalladi College, Mannarkkad was dismissed from College for allegedly committing the offence of ragging by Ext.P1 order. The said order is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Brief facts are as under:
The petitioner contends that while he was pursuing his education in the
4th respondent College, a complaint was lodged by a junior student that on 3.12.2021, the petitioner along with one Muhammed Anzil K. committed the offence of ragging. Ext.P1 order dismissing the petitioner was issued by the Assistant Professor in charge of Principal. It is contended that no notice was served on the petitioner before rusticating him and the principles of natural justice were violated. The petitioner would contend that before rusticating the petitioner, the respondents were bound to scrupulously follow the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009. As per proviso to clause (e) to Regulation 6(3), the enquiry in respect of a ragging incident is to be conducted by an Anti-Ragging Squad by observing a fair and transparent procedure and in full adherence to the principles of natural justice. Opportunity had to be given to the student/students accused of ragging and the other witnesses to place before the Anti Ragging Squad, the documents and views concerning the incident of ragging. A report has to be prepared and the same has to be placed before the Anti Ragging Committee which is to take a decision in terms of Regulation 9 of the UGC Regulations.
3. The petitioner contends that the criminal proceeding registered against the petitioner has been quashed by this Court as per Ext.P2 order based on a settlement arrived at between the petitioner and the victim.
4. It is further contended that the petitioner is now in the V Semester of a course comprising VI Semesters and the ultimate punishment of rustication is excessively grave and disproportionate. It is stated that challenging Ext.P1 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the 2nd respondent which is pending. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P1 order and quash the same by
iii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other writs or directions, directing respondent no.2 to revoke the exhibit P1 order terminating the petitioner from the college.
iv) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other writs or directions, directing respondent no.2 to consider and dispose of exhibit P3 appeal filed by the petitioner within a reasonable time fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
5. A statement has been filed on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 on
10.2.2022. In the said statement, it is stated that on an earlier occasion, based on Ext.R5(a) complaint alleging harassment of female students, the petitioner along with some other students were suspended by Ext.R5(b) order. It was while the suspension order was in force that the petitioner along with his friend entered the college and committed the offence of ragging on a junior student. The student had to be admitted in the hospital as he had sustained injuries. It is stated that the Anti Ragging Committee conducted a preliminary enquiry and they came to the conclusion that the allegations raised against the petitioner were true and genuine. A crime was also registered by the Mannarkkad police station and the petitioner fearing arrest absconded. The College authorities tried to contact the petitioner over the phone but he could not be contacted. In the said circumstances, notice dated 03.12.2021 was issued in his residential address. The said notice was also published in the notice board
