Back
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA In the matter of an Application for mandates in the nature of Writ of Certiorari under and in terms of Article 140 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.
Court of Appeal Case No.
CA/WRT/408/19 Anthony Weranga Pushpika De Silva
179/1, Modara Patuwaththa, Dodanduwa, Galle.
Petitioner
11. University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
22. Vice Chancellor, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
33. Registrar, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama,Mathara.
44. Prof. E.P.S. Chandana Deputy Vice Chancellor, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
55. Prof. S.D. Wanniarachchi, Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
66. Dr. K.G. Imendra, Dean, Faculty of Allied Health Science, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
77. Dr. H.P. Suriyaarachchi, Dean, Faculty of Engineering
88. Dr. H.B. Asanthi, Dean, Faculty of Fisheries Marine Sciences and Technology, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
99. Prof. M.V. Weerasuriya, Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
1010. Prof. Upali Pannilage, Dean, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
1111. Dr. T.S.L.W. Gunawardhane, Dean, Faculty of Managemnent and Finance, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
1212. Prof. Wasantha Deawasiri, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
1313. Prof. P.A. Jayantha, Dean, Faculty of Science, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
1414. Prof. W.D.G. Dharmarathne, Dean, Faculty of Technology, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
1515. Rev. Heelle Ghanananda Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
1616. Prof. Deni Athapaththu, Member of the Senate, 17. Sudath Jayasekara, Member of the Senate, 18. Sanath Karunanayake, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara. 19. L.C.K. Pathirana Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
20. M.G. Punchihewa, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
21. Kapila Nalaka Samarasinghe, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
22. Safraf Samsudeen, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
23. P.H. Sugathadasa, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
24. Prof. NJ. de S. Amarasinghe, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara. 25. P.S. Kalugama, Secretary of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
26. S.A. Andrahennadi, Member of the Senate, 27. Asoka de Silva, 28. T.M. Nimal de Silva, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
29. Dr. U.G. Karunarathne, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
30. R.M. Gamini Rathnayake, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
31. Prof. Saman Abesinghe, Member of the Senate, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
32. Prof. D.A.L. Leelamanie, Head, Department of Soil Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
33. Wnniarachchilage Disna Rathnasekara, Head, Departmentof Agricultural biology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
34. Aruna Disanayaka, Lecturer, Faculty of allied Health Science, University of Ruhuna, Wellamadama, Mathara.
35. Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General Department, Colombo 12.
Respondents Before: M. T. MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J. and S. U. B. KARALLIYADDE, J.
Counsel: Nuwan Bopage with Chathura Weththasinghe for the Petitioner Ms. Sabrina Ahmed, SC for the Respondents Argued on: 31.03.2022 Written Submissions on: 25.07.2022 (by the Petitioner)
30.06.2022 (by the Respondents)
Decided on: 14.09.2022
MOHAMMED LAFFAR, J.
The Petitioner in this application is seeking an order in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the decision dated 07.08.2019 (marked as ‘P7’), the decision dated 20.11.2019 (marked as ‘P8(i)’) and an order in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent to reinstate the studentship of the Petitioner.
The 1st to 35th Respondents, having filed their statement of objections dated 30.07.2021, moved for a dismissal of the Petition of the Petitioner. The Petitioner at the time of the impugned decision was a third-year student of the Faculty of Management and Finance and also President of the Student Union of the University.
The impugned decisions arise out of the conduct of the Petitioner at the University of Ruhuna for which a charge sheet dated 18.06.2019 had been issued by the University to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the Petitioner. The charges inter alia were the breach of the security regulations, obstruction to the security from carrying out their duties, non- cooperation at preliminary inquiry, breach of temporary suspension order by entering the hostel etc. The said charge sheet had been served in pursuance of the recommendation of a Preliminary Investigation Report following an investigation into two incidents that had taken place on 29.05.2019 and 03.06.2019 where the Petitioner is said to have breached certain stipulated security measures.
Thereafter, a formal inquiry had been conducted by a three-member panel of the University which recommended that the Petitioner be suspended for three years. This recommendation was implemented by the Council of the University and the said decision was conveyed to the Petitioner by letter dated 07.08.2019 (marked as ‘P5’), which is now sought to be quashed.
The Court is informed that a third incident had taken place on 24.10.2019 and an investigation in that regard is also being conducted by the University.
Following the aforesaid suspension, the Petitioner had submitted an appeal against the said decision. The Appeals’ Board of the University has thereafter decided to expel the Petitioner from the student membership of the University. The said appeal decision had been conveyed to the Petitioner by letter dated 20.11.2019 (marked as ‘P6(i)’), which is also now sought to be quashed.
Attention of this Court was drawn towards a complaint to the Human Rights Commission and an inquiry carried out thereon which has now supposedly been concluded. However, this Court is not informed of the outcome of the said inquiry.
The Petitioner’s contention is based upon the premise that the allegations were not proved, rules of natural justice have not been followed and that the decision made is not proportional to the offence committed. The Petitioner also asserts that he was not given an opportunity to cross examine the complainant and/or other witnesses.
The Court observes that the discipline and residence of the student population at the University of Ruhuna is governed by the by-laws approved by the Council of the University under subsection (1)(d) of Section 135 of the Universities Act No. 16 of 1978. At the Respondent University, the by-laws in respect of discipline and residence of students had come into force on 12.01.2015. Accordingly, attention of Court was drawn to the following by-laws:
• Where there has been indiscipline or misconduct by a student, the VC or Deputy VC shall be informed without delay; s.5 (1)
• The relevant student maybe warned, or temporarily suspended; s.6(1)(b), 7(5)(b)
• Preliminary Inquiries; s. 30
• Formal Inquiry; s. 32
• Any student who contravened to comply with the rules shall be guilty of misconduct or Indiscipline and be liable to expelled from the University; s. 29(b)
• Appeals; s.
34 In this context, the Court considering the process by which the impugned decisions were made gathers that the Petitioner firstly participated at the preliminary investigation where an oral statement followed by a written statement was provided; Petit
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
