Gujarat High Court
Dr. Nirav Bhulabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 4 on 6 August, 2014
Author: Harsha Devani
Bench: Harsha Devani
C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1958 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1961 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge?
=============================================
DR. NIRAV BHULABHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 4....Respondent(s)
Special Civil Application No.1958/2014
Appearance:
MR ND NANAVATI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR RUTURAJ NANAVATI,
ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No.1
MR HK PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No.1 - 5
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.1 - 5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No.1 - 5
Special Civil Application No.1961/2014
Appearance:
MR ND NANAVATI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR YASH N NANAVATI,
ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No.1
MR DM DEVNANI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No.1 - 5
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No.1 - 5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No.1 - 5
=============================================
Page 1 of 20
C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
Date : 06/08/2014
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. N.D. Nanavati, learned senior advocate with Mr. Ruturaj Nanavati and Mr. Yash Nanavati, learned advocates on behalf of the petitioner in each of the petitions and Mr. Himanshu Patel and Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. Rule. Mr. Himanshu Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents in Special Civil Application No.1958/2014 and Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents in Special Civil Application No.1961/2014. Having regard to the facts of the case, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matters were taken up for final hearing together and are decided by this common judgment.
3. In Special Civil Application No.1958/2014, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 17 th September, 2013 passed by the Director, Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad whereby the petitioner has been suspended till further orders from residency. It is further ordered that during the period of suspension, the petitioner is prohibited from entering the institution, hospital campus as well as hostel Page 2 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT without prior permission.
4. In Special Civil Application No.1961/2014, the petitioner has challenged order dated 17 th September, 2013 passed by the Dean, B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad passed by the third respondent whereby the petitioner has been suspended from internship and has been prohibited from entering the institution, hospital campus and hostel without prior permission till the period of suspension is over as well as the order dated 18th December, 2013 whereby the petitioner and one Kashyap Patel have, in accordance with the decision of the Anti-ragging Committee taken in the context of the report of the Inquiry Committee, been suspended for three years from the college.
5. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the petitioners are students of B.J. Medical College, Ahmedabad. The first petitioner (petitioner in Special Civil Application No.1958/2014) has been pursuing his studies in the Second Year of General Surgery in the second respondent College and the second petitioner (petitioner in Special Civil Application No.1961/2014) has been pursuing his studies as intern with the second respondent College. On 17 th August, 2013, the procedure for admission of students in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course had commenced and the College started functioning from 26th August, 2013. It appears that on 14 th September, 2013, the University Grants Commission (UGC) received an anonymous telephonic complaint in respect of an alleged incident of ragging of an undisclosed and unidentified student of the First Year M.B.B.S. According to the anonymous telephonic complaint, a First Year M.B.B.S. student had been Page 3 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT subjected to ragging. It appears that on the basis of the said telephonic complaint, the UGC had forwarded an e-mail to the Dean of the second respondent College informing him about the alleged incident and requesting him to take appropriate measures in that regard. It appears that the incident of ragging was also published in a daily newspaper on 17 th September, 2013.
6. It is the case of the first petitioner that on 17 th September, 2013, he was called by the Dean and was asked to give a statement in writing confessing his guilt. On his refusal to do so, the Dean had telephonically contacted his father and told him that the petitioner was one of the miscreants who had taken part in the incident that had occurred on 27 th August, 2013 and that upon his father inquiring about the nature of the act committed by the petitioner, an evasive reply was given. It is the case of the petitioner that under threat, the petitioner was coerced to write a confessional statement on the same day in the office of the Dean and that acting upon the said confessional statement, the second respondent has passed the impugned order.
7. It is the case of the second petitioner that on 17 th September, 2013, the petitioner was called upon by the Dean and was forced to name three students viz., Dr. Nirav Patel, Dr. Vishal Chaudhari and Dr. Hardik Patel for their involvement in ragging as against which the name of the petitioner would be deleted from the complaint. That on refusing to say so, the Dean had threatened him. It is the case of the petitioner that he has not given any written confession with regard to the alleged commission of ragging; however, the Dean has passed Page 4 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT the suspension order dated 17th September, 2013 suspending the petitioner till further orders.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that the impugned orders dated 17th September, 2013 have been passed without issuing show-cause notice to the petitioners and without affording any opportunity to them to plead their case or defence before the Anti-Ragging Committee on 25 th October, 2013. It appears that by orders dated 18 th December, 2013, the petitioners have been suspended from College for a period of three years. The petitioners have thereafter made representations to various authorities, however, to no avail. It is in these circumstances, that the petitioners have approached this court seeking the relief noted hereinabove.
9. Mr. N.D. Nanavati, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners in each of the petitions submitted that in respect of the alleged incident of ragging, the Anti-Ragging Committee has submitted a report. It was submitted that all the concerned students who had been called by the Anti- Ragging Committee had denied any incident having taken place. It was contended that the petitioners have been suspended for a period of three years on the basis of the report of the Anti-Ragging Committee, however, a copy of such report has not been furnished to the petitioners nor have they been afforded any opportunity of hearing in respect thereof. It was submitted that no material whatsoever has been brought to the notice of the petitioners as to on what basis the initial as well as the subsequent orders of suspension have been passed. It was urged that it may be that having regard to the nature of the complaint, the identity of the victim may not be Page 5 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT disclosed, however, no proceedings even in camera have been held by the respondents. The attention of the court was invited to the record of the case and more particularly, to the proceedings before the Anti-Ragging Committee to point out that except for the anonymous complaint which was forwarded by the UGC from the Anti-Ragging Helpline, there is no material whatsoever with the respondent authorities so as to establish that any incident has in fact taken place. It was submitted that though a written complaint has been placed along with the record of the Anti-Ragging Committee, pursuant thereto, in the inquiry made by the Committee, no material has been found so as to impeach the petitioners and that the sole basis for debarring the petitioners for a period of three years is the so-called confessional statements obtained from the petitioners by way of coercion. It was pointed out that insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, the statement obtained is to the effect that he had taken part in the ragging whereas insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, all that has been stated in the so-called confessional statement is that on 5th September, 2013, when the names of the juniors and information was being elicited, he was present in Block 'B' for some time. It was submitted that on the basis of such slender evidence, the petitioners have been visited with the serious consequence of suspension from the college for three years.
9.1 It was submitted that even prior to obtaining the so- called confessional statements, neither of the petitioners were put to notice as regards the consequence of making such a confession. It was submitted that prior to obtaining such statements from the petitioners, the authorities were duty bound to put the petitioners to guard about the consequence Page 6 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT of such action and that in any case, the petitioners have retracted the so-called confessions and have denied the same before the Anti-Ragging Committee. It was submitted that on the basis of the decision of the Anti-Ragging Committee, the penalty of suspension for three years has been inflicted upon the petitioners without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. Reliance was placed upon the decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Kolli Madhav Sairam Reddy v. Union of India & Ors., 2011 (1) GLR 481 wherein the Division Bench was considering a case wherein the allegations against the petitioner therein were far more serious and, observed that the appellant therein had not been put to notice about the proposed punishment and, therefore, did not get the opportunity to put forward his response as regards the proposed penalty and about its quantum. In the absence of notice, the appellant remained uninformed about the proposed penalty and did not get opportunity to rebut against the proposed penalty and to that extent, the impugned action regarding imposition of penalty stands vitiated. The court further observed that the matter could not be closed or concluded at that stage since it would amount to closing the matter without penalty. The court, however, having regard to the penalty which the appellant therein had already undergone and the young age of the appellant as well as the nature of the incident and keeping in focus the question about the student's future career as well as the proposition that penalty in such cases ought to have reformative ingredient as well as considering that with the penalty which the appellant had undergone, he must have realised the ills of ragging and need for discipline, the court deemed it appropriate and just to hold that the penalty which had been undergone by the appellant Page 7 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT till then, should be treated as sufficient penalty in the facts of the case and that the interest of justice would be served if the penalty order is set aside prospectively i.e. for the remaining period. It was submitted that the above decision would be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the petitioners have not been put to notice about the proposed penalty and hence, the impugned action regarding imposition of penalty stands vitiated. It was further submitted that the petitioners have no objection if a similar approach as adopted by the Division Bench in the above decision is adopted by this court and the penalty order is set aside prospectively.
9.2 Reliance was also placed upon another decision of a Division Bench of this court rendered in the case of Shankerlal Kanaiyalal Narwele v. Divisional Security Commissioner, 2001 JX (Guj) 362, wherein it has been held that it was totally unconstitutional and illegal on the part of the disciplinary authority to straightaway dismiss the petitioner therein on the alleged confessional statement made in writing and orally made. The court observed that confessional statement in itself did not warrant dispensation of inquiry. Such confessional statement made in writing or orally could have been proved in a regularly constituted disciplinary inquiry in accordance with the RPF Rules. The court found justification in the grievance raised on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of an arbitrary order of dispensation of disciplinary inquiry, the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity of demonstrating that confessional statements in writing and orally were obtained from him under threat and coercion. The court observed that pre-inquiry confessions or admissions can constitute an evidentiary material in themselves or with other, Page 8 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT against the delinquent which has to be led in the course of inquiry, when set up against him in accordance with the rules regulating it so that he gets opportunity to meet it in his defence as part of the constitutional protection available to him under Article 311 of the Constitution. They cannot in themselves constitute a ground to totally dispense with the inquiry. Mr. Nanavati submitted that in the present case, no confession had been made before the Inquiry Committee and the so-called confession was obtained by the Dean under coercion from the petitioners. However, in the absence of any opportunity being granted to the petitioners, they were not in a position to lead evidence to show that such confession had been obtained under threat and coercion. It was, accordingly, urged that the impugned orders being arbitrary, improper and having been made in breach of the principles of natural justice are required to be quashed and set aside or, in the alternative, the course adopted by the Division Bench in the above referred decision may be adopted and the impugned orders may be set aside prospectively by treating the penalty undergone by the petitioners to be the penalty under the said orders.
10. Vehemently opposing the petitions, Mr. Himanshu Patel and Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleaders invited the attention of the court to the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the third respondent. It was submitted that the orders dated 17 th September, 2013 which are subject matter of challenge in the present petitions are pursuant to the incident of ragging where the petitioners have been found to be guilty. It was pointed out that the respondent B.J. Medical College had received complaints from the University Grants Commission dated 17th September, 2013, Page 9 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT 25th September, 2013 and 30th September, 2013 pursuant to complaints made by students of B.J. Medical College on the official website of UGC more particularly, it's Anti-Ragging Cell. The respondent authorities found the complaints forwarded by the UGC to be very serious in nature and, therefore, immediately referred the matter to the Anti-Ragging Committee which ultimately took steps against two students namely, the petitioners herein. It was submitted that the Anti- Ragging Committee in its report dated 18th September, 2013 came to the unanimous conclusion that two students were ultimately required to be suspended with immediate effect as they have orally as well as in writing admitted to having participated in the incident of ragging. It was submitted that the admission made by the petitioners was in the presence of twenty members of the Anti-Ragging Committee which met on 18th September, 2013 and the record of the case also contains a note which clearly mentions the name of the petitioners as being involved in the incident of ragging.
10.1 As regards the version given by the petitioners that the confessional statements were obtained from them under threat and coercion, it was argued that the petitioners are students of the Medical College since quite some time and it is highly improbable that they would write such confessional statements under threat or coercion. It was submitted that considering the fact that both the petitioners having been involved in an inhuman incident of ragging, the Anti-Ragging Committee was wholly justified in imposing the punishment which has been meted out to them. It was submitted that before the Inquiry Committee or the Anti-Ragging Committee, the concerned students namely, the victims of ragging, have Page 10 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT not named the students who had subjected them to ragging because of the fact that they are afraid of being subjected to further inhuman treatment in case they disclose the names of their seniors. The attention of the court was invited to the complaint received by the UGC to point out the nature of ragging which the juniors were subjected to, to submit that inhuman treatment was being meted out to them. It was submitted that having regard to the conduct of the petitioners, no leniency is required to be shown to them.
10.2 Insofar as the contention with regard to breach of principles of natural justice is concerned, reliance was placed upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the third respondent wherein it has been averred that the petitioners having admitted to have participated in the incident of ragging, there would be no question of violation of the principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the petitioners having participated in the incident of ragging which is evident from the confessional statements given by them, the respondents are duly justified in taking steps against them and imposing punishment of suspension for three years. It was, accordingly, urged that the petitions being devoid of merit, deserve to be dismissed.
11. Before adverting to the merits of the rival contentions, it may be germane to refer to the record of the case. The proceedings in respect of the complaint of ragging received by the respondents have been placed on record together with the affidavit-in-reply filed by the third respondent, which reveal that the UGC had received a complaint from a student of B.J. Medical College on 14 th Page 11 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT September, 2013. A perusal of the complaint reveals that a student had been subjected to a severe and inhuman form of ragging. It appears that pursuant to the complaint being forwarded by the UGC to the respondent College, the Dean, B.J. Medical College, by a communication dated 30 th September, 2013, informed the UGC that in respect of the incident of ragging, an Inquiry Committee was formed with immediate effect to inquire the matter in detail. During the inquiry process, the Inquiry Committee has found that such incident of ragging has not taken place and that till that date, not even a Committee Member or staff members of the College have received any ragging complaint. It appears that the UGC has called for an Action Taken Report from the respondent College pursuant to the above referred complaint. The Anti- Ragging Committee of the respondent College has prepared an Action Taken Report on the matter of ragging incident at B.J. Medical College dated 18th September, 2013. A perusal of the same discloses that the Anti-Ragging Committee had convened a meeting on 17th September, 2013 in order to consider the complaint on the matter pertaining to ragging of First Year M.B.B.S. students. It is recorded therein that pursuant to the complaint received from students studying in the M.B.B.S. Course as well as Post-Graduation course at the College pertaining to ragging, the Dean had immediately called a meeting of the Anti-Ragging Committee. The accused students were present before the Anti-Ragging Committee. After going through the complaint, the Committee arranged hearing of the accused as well as students who have suffered. The Committee after hearing both the sides unanimously came to the conclusion that the complaint was prima facie correct and unanimously decided to suspend both the petitioners with Page 12 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT immediate effect. The suspension letters to both the students namely, the petitioners herein have been issued at the same time. It is further recorded that the Dean has decided to appoint an Inquiry Committee immediately with clear instructions to submit the report within one month from the date of appointment of the Committee. It appears that on the basis of the Action Taken Report submitted by the Anti- Ragging Committee, by the impugned orders dated 17 th September, 2013, both the petitioners came to be suspended.
12. Subsequent thereto, the Inquiry Committee so appointed, carried out further inquiry and submitted its report, a copy whereof has been placed on record along with the further affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the third respondent. A perusal of the report of the Inquiry Committee reveals that the Inquiry Committee on the basis of the information collected by it has recorded that on the basis of the complaint received by the Dean, the students who have been named as victims as well as the students who have possibly subjected the students to ragging have been reflected. Each student who has been named therein has been called personally and had been given to understand the nature of ragging and that ragging was an offence which would be visited by drastic consequences like penal provisions and that if any student gives any information with regard to the incident, appropriate action shall be taken by the institution against the accused, else, investigation shall be handed over to the police and in case the offence is established, the punishment would be very serious. The students were further informed that the persons who gave any information would be fully protected and all the details given by them would be kept totally confidential. Despite the fact Page 13 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT that such an assurance was given to them, none of the students have come forward to state anything in this regard. That it has come to the notice of the Inquiry Committee that the incident of ragging has taken place in the hospital mess on 28th August, 2013, however, no student has accepted the same. The Committee was of the belief that ragging was not an accidental event but was a regular feature and was a definite kind of menace which at this stage is required to be prevented. The Committee has noted that at present at various levels, investigation is going on into the incident of ragging and it is possible that on account of the fact that action is also being taken through the police, the ragging has stopped, however, the Committee is of the firm belief that as and when the inquiry process is over, the menace of ragging would again raise its head and hence, it is absolutely necessary that strict steps are taken in this regard.
13. The Committee has further recorded that the students who have been victims of ragging have made a complaint to the UGC Online which has brought the incident to light and the office of the Dean has received unsigned complaints. The Inquiry Committee has further noted that the students named in Appendix-1 (i) Nirav Patel and (ii) Dhrumin Patel, the petitioners herein, have accepted that they have committed ragging in writing, however, before the Inquiry Committee, they have not accepted their offence. In terms of the unsigned complaint, the students at Appendix-1 are the students who have committed ragging. The students at Appendix-2, who have been referred as Boss, also appear to the Inquiry Committee to be students who have committed ragging. The students named in Appendix-3 who have been Page 14 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT given duty list, it appears that they have been victims of ragging and the students residing in Room No.107 also appear to be involved in ragging. The Committee has further recorded that on the basis of the aforesaid facts and the written and oral statements of students, the Committee is of the view that an incident of ragging has taken place at B.J. Medical College. However, at present action is being taken at various levels and hence, the students who are involved in ragging and who are victims of ragging both are not ready to accept that such incident had taken place.
14. The conclusions recorded by the Committee are that in terms of the UGC Guidelines, spectators of ragging as well as victims of ragging, if they do not complain, are also offenders. Thus, the students named at Appendix 1, 2 and 3 as well as students residing in Room No.107 in 'B' Block Hospital are liable to be punished under section 6.5.9 of the UGC Draft No.F.1-16/2007(CPP-II) April, 2009 UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009. That these students should be given exemplary punishment in respect of ragging so that in future, no other student dares to take part in ragging and the serious menace of ragging is curbed. It is further recorded that in respect of the incident, no definite evidence/witnesses have been obtained regarding those who are involved in ragging as well as victims of ragging as well as those who have been spectators of ragging, none of them are ready to accept that such incident had taken place and that at present, since the police as well as the Anti-Ragging Committee's inquiry is going on, the ragging activities have been curbed at the moment. These, in sum and substance, are the findings and conclusions recorded by the Page 15 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT Inquiry Committee.
15. On a plain reading of the findings recorded by the Anti-Ragging Committee as well as the Inquiry Committee, it is apparent that there is no material whatsoever available with either of the Committees so as to establish that the petitioners have committed the act of ragging. The sole evidence on the basis of which the petitioners herein have been punished by passing the initial orders of suspension and subsequent orders suspending them from the college for three years, are the so- called confessional statements obtained by the Dean. On behalf of the respondents, it has been contended that such statements have been voluntarily given by the petitioners. In this regard it may be noted that both the petitioners are students of a Medical College who can be attributed reasonable intelligence. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that any such statements could have been given by them voluntarily without any threat or coercion. One fails to believe as to why the petitioners, on their own, would give such statements in writing before the Dean. Moreover, a perusal of the confessional statements reveals that insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, he has accepted that he had done ragging. However, insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, all that he has stated is that for some time he was present in the concerned Block at the time when the names and information about juniors were being elicited. The said petitioner, even in the so-called confessional statement, has not confessed to having taken part in the ragging incident.
16. From the report of the Inquiry Committee, it is apparent that no material whatsoever has come on record to Page 16 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT indicate the involvement of the petitioners and the sole basis on which the petitioners have been subjected to the punishment of suspension from the college for three years, is the so-called confessional statements and one unsigned letter which names the two petitioners.
17. Besides, apart from the fact that the punishments are based upon the confessional statements referred to hereinabove, it is an admitted position that no opportunity of hearing had been given to either of the petitioners in respect of the proposed punishment. On the basis of the confessional statements, the Anti-Ragging Committee recommended suspension of the petitioners and subsequently on the basis thereof, the petitioners have been suspended for three years. It cannot be gainsaid that suspension from the college for a period of three years is a highly drastic punishment and would seriously prejudice the careers of the petitioners. Therefore, as held by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Kolli Madhav Sairam Reddy v. Union of India (supra), the petitioners were required to be put to notice about the proposed punishment. In the absence of any opportunity to put forward their response as regards the proposed penalty and about its quantum, the petitioners remained uninformed and did not get any opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty. Moreover, no material whatsoever collected by the respondents was brought to the notice of the petitioners nor were they called upon to explain as to why they should be visited with the proposed penalty. Under the circumstances, following the decision of the Division Bench, the impugned action of the respondents in imposing penalty without affording any opportunity to the petitioners to represent their Page 17 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT case against the proposed penalty, stands vitiated. However, as observed by the Division Bench in the above referred judgment, the matter cannot be closed or concluded at this stage since it would amount to closing the matter without any penalty.
18. A perusal of the facts of the case before the Division Bench reveals that in the said case, the appellant had participated in the proceedings without any objection and made his statement about the incident and the nature and extent of his role. His statement was in the nature of admission about the incident and extent of his role. Other students had also made their respective statements and the name of the appellant therein figured in their statements. Either before or while giving his statement or immediately thereafter, the appellant therein did not make any grievance that any notice informing the allegations/charge was not served. The occurrence of the incident had not been denied and the appellant had not assailed the statements of other students on the ground that they were incorrect or were actuated and tainted by malafides or even animosity or such other grounds. There was not even a retraction of the statements made by any student including the appellant therein. As compared to the facts of the said case, in the present case, both the petitioners have retracted their statements. Besides having regard to the nature of the statements as discussed hereinabove, the role of the petitioners is not clear. Insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, he has not accepted having taken any active part in the ragging incident. No student has come forth to depose against the petitioners nor has either the Anti-Ragging Committee or the Inquiry Page 18 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT Committee collected any evidence to establish the involvement of the petitioners. Under the circumstances, the petitioners stand on a much better footing than the appellant in the matter before the Division Bench. In the opinion of this court, the petitioners, therefore, at least, are entitled to similar treatment as has been given to the appellant in the said letters patent appeal.
19. In the aforesaid premises, having regard to the penalty which the petitioners have already undergone, the young age of the petitioners and the facts as noted hereinabove and keeping in focus the question about the future career of the petitioners as well as the proposition that penalty in such cases ought to have a reformative ingredient and considering the fact that with the penalty that the petitioners have undergone, they must have realised the ills of ragging and the need for discipline, this court deems it proper to hold that the penalty which has been undergone by the petitioners until now, should be treated as sufficient penalty in the facts of the case and the interests of justice would be served if the penalty orders are set aside prospectively, that is, for the remaining period.
20. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions succeed and are accordingly allowed to the following extent. The impugned orders dated 17th September, 2013 and 18th December, 2013 passed by the respondents imposing penalty on the petitioners are set aside prospectively, that is, with effect from the date of the present order and the period during which the petitioners have remained under suspension is not disturbed and the entire period will be treated as part of the Page 19 of 20 C/SCA/1958/2014 JUDGMENT penalty. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the aforesaid extent.
( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki Page 20 of 20