Kerala High Court Quashes Expulsion of 19 Veterinary Students, Orders Fresh Probe Citing Grave Natural Justice Violations

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has quashed the expulsion of 19 students from the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, a punitive measure taken following the tragic death of a fellow student, Sidharathan . The Court found significant violations of the principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings, particularly the failure to provide students with specific charges and an adequate opportunity to defend themselves as mandated by the UGC Regulations.

The judgment, delivered in a batch of writ petitions led by WP(C) No.22835 of 2024, directs the University to conduct a fresh enquiry and allows the students to be re-admitted pending its outcome.

Case Background: Tragic Death and Disciplinary Action

The case arose from the unfortunate death of Sidharathan , a second-year B.V.Sc & A.H student, found hanging in the college hostel on February 18, 2024. Following police registration of a crime (Crime No.77/2024, Vythiri Police Station) and complaints from the National Anti Ragging Cell, the University's Anti Ragging Committee initiated proceedings.

An Anti Ragging Squad conducted an enquiry, submitting an interim report (Ext P10) alleging that Sidharathan was assaulted and detained by students for two days, leading to his suicide. Based on this, the Committee recommended, and the Dean subsequently ordered (Ext P4), the expulsion of 19 students and debarred them from admission to any other college for three years. The students were also implicated as accused in the criminal case.

Petitioners' Arguments: Denial of Fair Process

The students challenged their expulsion on several grounds:

* Violation of Natural Justice: They argued they were not given proper notice, copies of enquiry reports, or a fair opportunity to defend themselves against specific allegations. They contended the notices (Ext P2 suspension order for 12 students, Ext P7 general enquiry notice) did not contain individual charges.

* Lack of Authority: The competence of the Dean to initiate proceedings and impose penalties was questioned.

* Procedural Impropriety: Issues were raised regarding the constitution and procedures of the Anti Ragging Squad and Committee.

University's Stance: Justified Actions

The University defended its actions, asserting:

* The disciplinary proceedings were conducted as per UGC Regulations.

* The Dean had the delegated authority to take action.

* Students were allegedly evading the process, making direct service of notices difficult.

* Some writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners had withdrawn statutory appeals.

Court's Findings: Natural Justice Paramount

The High Court meticulously examined the contentions, leading to the following key findings:

Maintainability of Writ Petitions

The Court rejected the University's objection regarding maintainability, noting that the petitioners withdrew their appeals because they were filed against the Dean's order (Ext P4) instead of the Anti Ragging Committee's decision, a copy of which was not provided to them at the time. The Court affirmed its power under Article 226 to examine violations of natural justice, especially when crucial documents for an effective appeal were withheld.

"The documents would clearly indicate that, the petitioners were not provided with copies of the enquiry reports (interim as well as final) and copies of the decision of the Committee, so as to enable them to utilise the opportunity to avail the statutory remedy of appeal, effectively." (Para 10)

Dean's Authority Upheld

The Court found that the Dean of the Constituent College was validly delegated the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Section 61(2) of the Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University Act and relevant statutes.

"Thus, there was a valid delegation specifically enabling the Dean to exercise the powers to conduct disciplinary proceedings against the students." (Para 13)

Grave Violations of Natural Justice

This formed the crux of the Court's decision to interfere. The Court highlighted the mandate of the proviso to Regulation 6.3(e) of the UGC Regulations, which requires the Anti Ragging Squad to observe a fair and transparent procedure and principles of natural justice.

Improper Notice: Notices were sent via email and through 'advisors', with no attempt to serve them at residential addresses or to parents. The Court deemed notice through advisors improper for such serious disciplinary proceedings. > "The notices claimed to have been sent through the advisors of the petitioners cannot be treated proper notices under any circumstances." (Para 22)

Lack of Specific Allegations: The suspension order (Ext P2 for 12 students) and the enquiry notice (Ext P7) did not contain individual allegations or a memo of charges against each student. > "In Ext. P2, apart from a general description of the incident in brief, there are no individual allegations. It also does not contain any memo of charges as well." (Para 23) > "Conspicuously, even though in the said notice, it is mentioned that it is “to defend the allegation” nothing is mentioned about the allegations and the individual charges against the persons to whom such notices were issued." (Para 26)

The Court emphasized that providing specific charges was crucial for students to mount a defence.

"Had such an opportunity been provided, it would have been possible for them to raise their defence and produce materials to substantiate their defence... This opportunity would have been something that must have impacted the final decision, at least for some of the petitioners." (Para 31)

• Non-Furnishing of Enquiry Report/Witness Gist: While acknowledging the University's concern about witness safety (citing Hira Nath Mishra 's case ), the Court held that this did not justify denying students even the gist of witness statements or specific allegations. > "...even though the respondents are justified in not giving the statements of the witnesses and giving an opportunity to cross-examine them... the same cannot be a justification for denying the opportunity to be issued with notices containing the specific allegations against them. Besides, the petitioners should have been served with at least the gist of the statements of the witnesses who have stated the individual roles of the respective petitioners..." (Para 33)

The Court distinguished the present case from precedents where a lesser standard of natural justice was accepted, noting that here, basic requirements like notice of specific charges were not met.

Balancing Seriousness with Fairness

The Court acknowledged the gravity of the incident and public sentiment but underscored the indispensability of fair procedure.

"There cannot be any doubt that the culprits are to be identified and awarded with stringent punishment... However, those elements cannot be treated as reasons to do away with fairness in the enquiry by following the principles of natural justice." (Para 35) The Court also noted the pressure on the authorities to conclude the enquiry swiftly, potentially leading to compromised natural justice.

The Verdict and Directions

The High Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions:

1. Quashing of Orders: The Anti Ragging Squad's reports (Exts. P10, P12), the Anti Ragging Committee's decision (Ext. P11), and the Dean's expulsion order (Ext. P4) were quashed insofar as they applied to the petitioners.

2. Fresh Enquiry: The University is to conduct a fresh enquiry after issuing memos of charges specifying individual allegations and furnishing the gist of witness statements (without revealing identities). Statements need not be re-recorded.

3. Re-admission: Petitioners are to be re-admitted to continue their studies at the Mannuthy campus, subject to the enquiry's outcome. Exam results from interim orders will be withheld pending the enquiry.

4. Adjustment of Punishment: If found guilty in the fresh enquiry, any period of punishment already undergone will be adjusted.

5. Timeframe: The fresh enquiry must be completed within four months.

This judgment serves as a significant reminder to educational institutions about the critical importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings, even in highly sensitive and emotionally charged cases.