Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rahul Singh Sikarwar vs Rajmata Vijyaraje Scindia Krishi ... on 24 September, 2014
1 WP No. 5518/2014
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
SB: Justice Sujoy Paul
Writ Petition No. 5518/2014
Rahul Singh Sikarwar and Ors.
Versus
Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Kirshi Vishwa Vidyalaya
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Purushottam Rai Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri R.B.S. Tomar, Advocate for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
( 24 / 09 / 2014) This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 27.08.2014, whereby petitioners are placed under suspension for one full academic year i.e. 2014-15 under clause 22.4(d) of PG Academic Regulation and clause 15.3 of UG Academic Regulation.
2. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioners were studying in the classes mentioned in the second column of Annexure P/1. It is the case of the petitioners that they were residing in the hostel situated in the campus of respondents No. 1 to 3. It is canvassed that the petitioners have not indulged in any illegal activity or in any kind of indiscipline and misbehavior. The petitioners were suspended without affording them any opportunity. To bolster this submission, attention is drawn on page 68 of the W.P. to demonstrate that petitioner Vikram Singh Tomar was on a project / programme at a village in Aron. Panchnama signed by the Sarpanch is also filed in this regard. Attention of this Court is drawn on various documents. If opportunity would have been granted to them, they would have been in a position to establish their innocence.
3. By taking this court to various provisions and regulations, it is submitted that it is mandatory on the part of the respondents to issue notice to the petitioners before inflicting any punishment. In addition, it 2 WP No. 5518/2014 is submitted that it is Dean of the College who is competent to inflict punishment. His punishment order is appealable before the Director. In the present case, punishment order is passed by incompetent authority i.e. Vice Chancellor / Registrar. Thus, opportunity of appeal is also not available.
4. Shri Purushottam Rai placed heavy reliance on clause 22.3, 22.4 and 22.6 of PF Academic Regulation and similar clauses available in UG Academic regulation. In nutshell, it is submitted that the impugned order is passed without following principle of natural justice and the mandate of the Regulations. Since "due process" is not followed, the impugned order is liable to be axed by this Court.
5. Shri R.B.S. Tomar, Advocate for the respondents, on the other hand relied on the return filed by the respondents. By taking this court to various paragraphs of the return, it is argued that petitioners were called to participate in the enquiry telephonically but they did not turn up. Other ten students did turn up and deposed their statements which were duly considered by the Disciplinary Committee. The petitioners were called and therefore, it should be treated as sufficient opportunity. It is submitted that petitioners' earlier record is also polluted and therefore, no interference be made in the impugned order Annexure P/1.
6. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record.
7. I deem it proper to take a birds eye view on the relevant provisions of aforesaid Regulations. Clause 2 of UG Academic Regulation reads as under :-
"2. All the acts of indiscipline, misbehavior and case of unfair means during examination shall be put up before the Disciplinary Committee constituted in accordance with academic rule 11.5 for detailed enquiry. The Disciplinary Committee must issue a show cause notice to the student concerned and give him / her a patient hearing. On the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee, the Dean of the College shall inflict punishment or take necessary action within three days after receipt of report. The action taken by the College Dean will be communicated to the Director Instruction, the concerned Dean Faculty and the Registrar."
Clause 22.3, 22.4 and 22.6 of PG Academic Regulation read as 3 WP No. 5518/2014 under :-
"22.3. All acts of indiscipline, misbehaviour and cases of unfair means during examination shall be put up before the college level Disciplinary Committee constituted in accordance with academic rule 19.5 The Disciplinary Committee must issue a show cause notice to the student concerned and give him / her a patient hearing before proceeding against the student. On the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee, the Dean of the college shall inflict punishment or take necessary action against defaulting students within three days after receipt of the report. The action taken by the college Dean will be communicated to the Director Instruction, the Dean of the Faculty concerned and the Registrar.
22.4. The punishment to the student may be as under
depending upon severity of the act of indiscipline / misbehavior / misconduct. Each case of indiscipline be viewed seriously and student may be expelled from the roll of V.V.
(a) Warning in writing with the direction that in case of repetition of such act, the matter shall be viewed seriously and the student may be expelled from the roll of V.V.
(b) Fine of Rs.500/-.
(c) Recommendations to the Dean Faculty for transfer to another campus away from the hometown.
(d) Suspension for one full academic year in which the incidence occurred.
(e) Expulsion / Rustication from the V.V..
22.6. A student can appeal to the Director Instruction, against punishment under 22.4 only."
(Emphasis Supplied)
8. A conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions make it clear that principle of natural justice were codified in the shape of aforesaid Regulations. Regulations make it mandatory to issue show cause notice to the students concerned and give him / her a patient hearing. In the present case, admittedly no cause notice has been issued to petitioners. There is no material on record to show that any show cause notice is issued and served on the petitioners. Mere telephonic information about any meeting, by no stretch of imagination can substitute the requirement of issuing actual notice and give patient hearing. Thus, decision making process adopted by the respondents runs contrary to principle of natural justice and mandate of said 4 WP No. 5518/2014 regulations. Even if past record of the petitioners was not proper and even if they are involved in the alleged act of misconduct / misbehavior, it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to give them fair hearing after issuing show cause notice to the students concerned.
9. In addition, clause 22.3 makes it clear that on the recommendation of Disciplinary Committee it is Dean of the college who may inflict the punishment. Action taken by the Dean needs to be communicated to the Director Instruction, the Dean of the Faculty concerned and the Registrar. In the present case, punishment is issued under order of Vice Chancellor and communicated by the Registrar. This also runs contrary to clause 22.3 aforesaid. No other enabling provision is brought to the notice to this Court which empowers the Vice Chancellor /Registrar to inflict punishment. This is settled in law that if law provides to do a thing in a particular manner it has to be done in the same manner or not at all. [(See:-2011 (2) M.P.L.J. 690 ( Satyanjay Tripathi and Anr. Vs. Banarasi Devi) and (2001) 4 SCC 9 (Dhananjay Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka)]
10. In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that impugned order is passed contrary to principle of natural justice and Regulations aforesaid. Resultantly, order dated 27.08.2014 is set aside. Liberty is reserved to the respondents to take action against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits.
11. Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
(SUJOY PAUL)
Sarathe/- Judge