Disciplinary actions against students must adhere to principles of natural justice, ensuring proper communication of findings and right to appeal within institutional regulatory frameworks.

JUDGMENT

Different facets of a disciplinary proceeding initiated against a student of an Engineering College is the subject matter of these three writ petitions. As the issues involved in these writ petitions relate to the same student and the same incident, they are considered together and disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.46007 of 2025 and W.P.(C) No.3280 of 2026 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) is a III semester student of the TKM College of Engineering, Kollam. In the former writ petition, he has challenged the enquiry report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee (for short ‘the ICC’), the decision of the Disciplinary Authority - the Principal of the College imposing punishment on the petitioner as well as the decision of the Students Grievance Redressal Committee (for short ‘the SGRC), dismissing his appeal. The latter writ petition seeks for a direction to implement the decision of the Ombudsperson appointed by the University, who had considered petitioner's appeal against the orders of the Principal and that of SGRC. W.P.(C) No.3866 of 2026 is filed by the Principal of the TKM College, challenging the order of the Ombudsperson as well as the communication issued by the Registrar of the University, directing him to abide by the orders of the Ombudsperson.

3. For the purpose of easier comprehension, the facts as narrated in W.P.(C) No. 46007/2025 are narrated below. Petitioner is alleged to have downloaded certain photographs of the 12^th respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the victim’), who was his friend, and shared them with the 11^th respondent, who altered, edited and created sexually coloured stickers, and after including denigratory comments, allegedly circulated it through WhatsApp. Petitioner alleges that he had no role in creating any such stickers and alleged that it was the 11^th respondent who created the sticker. When respondents 12 to 17 raised complaints to the Head of the Department, the petitioner submitted his mobile phone for verification to the Head of the Department, who took custody of the said phone. In the meanwhile, a complaint was filed on 29.07.2025 by the victim, which was forwarded to the ICC for inquiry as per UGC Regulations and the petitioner and the 11^th respondent was suspended on 30.07.2025, pending inquiry. The inquiry conducted afterwards concluded that the petitioner and 11^th respondent had committed sexual harassment as defined in the Regulations and unanimously recommended to impose proportional punishment to the gravity of the deplorable act. As far as the 11^th respondent was concerned, the ICC recommended that the mitigating circumstances in his favour should be considered, while taking action.

4. Pursuant to the said recommendation, produced as Ext.P6, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.09.2025, calling upon him to show cause as to why the punishment should not be imposed. Petitioner alleges that, in the meantime, on 09.10.2025, the College Council, which had no authority, in a meeting held on 26.09.2025, considered the inquiry report and proposed to suspend him from college for two semesters. Petitioner alleges that by Ext.P8 dated 09.10.2025, the disciplinary authority, i.e. the Principal, following the decision of the College Council and without any independent application of mind, confirmed the decision of the College Council and suspended the petitioner for two semesters. Immediately, petitioner complained to the Vice-Chancellor as well as to the SGRC as per Ext.P10 on 09.10.2025. However, the SGRC, by order dated 18.10.2025, dismissed petitioner's appeal, after obser