Kerala High Court
Fenil P.Wilson vs The Director on 10 August, 2016
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF MAY 2017/19TH VAISAKHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 38867 of 2016 (G)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. FENIL P.WILSON,
S/O. P.V.WILSON, ROLL NO. B150141CE,
CIVIL ENGINEERING (CE),
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT.
2. SREERAJ S.,
S/O. K.N.SREEDHARAN, ROLL NO. B150369PE,
2ND YEAR PRODUCTION ENGINEERING,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT.
3. ARJUN PREMNATH,
S/O. PREMNATH P.N., ROLL NO. B150445CE,
CIVIL ENGINEERING (CE),
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT.
4. MOHAMMED HASHIR P.,
S/O. BASHEER, ROLL NO. B151024CH,
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING BRANCH,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT.
5. FASIL IBRAHIM K.,
S/O. ANDUL NAZER, ROLL NO. B15091CS,
COMPUTER SCIENCE ENGINEERING,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
SKG
WP(C).No. 38867 of 2016 (G)
----------------------------
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
CALICUT - 673 601, KERALA.
2. THE REGISTRAR,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
CALICUT - 673 601, KERALA.
3. THE CHIEF WARDEN,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
CALICUT - 673 601, KERALA.
4. THE CHAIRPERSON,
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (NIT),
CALICUT - 673 601, KERALA.
R1-R4 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-02-2017, ALONG WITH WPC. 2835/2017, THE COURT
ON 09-05-2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SKG
WP(C).No. 38867 of 2016 (G)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER PENDING ENQUIRY FROM THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.8.2016.
P2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO.DE/GJ/2016/2 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
DATED 25.8.2016.
P2(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO. DE/GJ/2016/7 TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER DATED 25.8.2016.
P2(B) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO. DE/GJ/2016/8 TO THE 3RD
PETITIONER DATED 25.8.2016.
P2(C) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO. DE/GJ/2016/3 TO THE 4TH
PETITIONER DATED 25.8.2016.
P2(D) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMO NO. DE/GJ/2016/5 TO THE 5TH
PETITIONER DATED 25.8.2016.
P3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO. DO/380/2016 BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 02.9.2016.
P4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DETAILED ENQUIRY INTO A
RAGGING INCIDENT DATED 28.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
P5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE HOSTEL RULES IN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY CALICUT HOSTEL.
P6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE "STUDENTS CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINARY CODE
2007" IN NITC.
P7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE UGC REGULATIONS ON CURBING THE MENACE OF
RAGGING IN HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, 2009.
P8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT DATED 09.11.2016.
P8(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT DATED 11.11.2016.
SKG
WP(C).No. 38867 of 2016 (G)
----------------------------
P8(B) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT DATED 14.11.2016.
P8(C) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT DATED 14.11.2016.
P3(D) PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE 5TH
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY, CALICUT DATED 11.11.2016.
P9 PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 33901/2016 DATED
21.11.2016 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.
P10 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHAIRPERSON DISMISSING
THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2016.
P10(A)PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHAIRPERSON DISMISSING
THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2016.
P10(B)PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHAIRPERSON DISMISSING
THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2016.
P10(C)PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHAIRPERSON DISMISSING
THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2016.
P10(D)PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CHAIRPERSON DISMISSING
THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER DATED 29.11.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE
SKG
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.38867 of 2016 & 2835 of 2017
-----------------------------------------------
Dated 9th May, 2017.
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners in these writ petitions are students undergoing B.Tech. course in the National Institute of Technology, Calicut ('the Institute'). They have approached this Court challenging their suspension from the Institute as also from the hostels of the Institute under the UGC Regulations on Curbing the Menace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions, 2009 ('the Regulations').
2. The relevant facts are the following : On 29.7.2016, a first year B.Tech. student in the Institute, namely, Muhammed Sahal Siddique ('the victim') preferred a complaint to the Chief Warden of the Institute stating that on 28.7.2016, while he was coming back to the hostel after the forenoon session of the classes, a senior student forcibly took him to the boys' hostel, where students other than the first year students WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 2 are accommodated; that when he resisted to enter the said hostel as he is instructed not to enter the said hostel, a group of senior students forcefully took him to one of the rooms in the said hostel and closed the room from inside. It is stated by the victim that the students who entered the room along with him thereafter, asked silly questions to him and started ill treating him. It is also stated by the victim that some of the students thereafter hit him on his face and stomach and some others have pulled his hair and verbally abused him. It is further stated by the victim that one among the senior students, in the course of the said incident, saved his mobile number in the mobile phone of the victim and directed him to recharge his mobile phone for Rs.30/-. After some time, it is stated that he was permitted to leave the hostel with the direction that he should come to the hostel as and when called by the senior students.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the Chief Warden of the Institute conducted a preliminary enquiry and found that an incident as alleged by the victim in the complaint had taken WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 3 place in the campus. Consequently, the Chief Warden of the Institute informed the matter to the Dean of the Institute for appropriate action. The Dean of the Institute, thereupon, constituted a committee for conducting a preliminary enquiry into the incident. The committee constituted by the Dean of the Institute found that the victim has been ragged by a group of third semester students by forcefully taking him to Room No.237 of Mega Hostel for Boys on a two-wheeler at about 12.15 Hrs. on 28.7.2016, by physically abusing him, by keeping him in unauthorized custody for about an hour and also by directing him to recharge a senior student's mobile phone for Rs.30.00. In the meanwhile, the Director of the Institute advised the Anti-ragging Squad constituted in the Institute in accordance with the Regulations to examine the matter and submit a report. The Anti-ragging Squad of the Institute, accordingly, conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to the Director stating that the victim was ragged by a group of senior students on 28.7.2016, and recommended for a detailed inquiry into the incident. In the light of the reports WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 4 submitted by Anti-ragging Squad of the Institute as also the committee constituted by the Dean to conduct the preliminary enquiry, the Anti-ragging Committee of the Institute constituted under the Regulations decided to conduct a detailed enquiry into the incident, after placing the students found to be involved in the said reports under suspension. Accordingly, the petitioners in the writ petitions and two others were placed under suspension, as per Ext P1 order therein, pending detailed enquiry into the incident.
4. The committee constituted to conduct the detailed enquiry by the Anti-ragging Committee of the Institute, thereupon, took the statement of the victim again and issued memos to the petitioners in both the writ petitions based on the identification made by the victim as to the students involved in the incident with reference to their photographs as available in the Institute records. Ext.P2 series in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 are the memos issued to the petitioners therein and Ext.P2 in W.P.(C) No.2835 of 2017 is the memo issued to the petitioner therein. The overt acts attributed against the respective WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 5 petitioners were also indicated specifically in the memos issued to them. The petitioners have refuted the allegations levelled against them as also the overt acts attributed against them. The stand taken by the petitioners before the Committee which conducted the detailed enquiry was that they were not involved in the incident. Of course, the fifth petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 admitted before the detailed enquiry committee that he requested the victim to recharge his mobile phone and saved his number in the mobile phone of the victim for the said purpose. The detailed enquiry committee, on examination of the materials on record, found that the petitioners in the writ petitions were physically present in the hostel room in which the victim was locked on the relevant day; that all of them have slapped on the face of the victim; that some among them have abused the victim verbally; that the fifth petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 has made the victim to recharge his mobile phone and that the said conduct on the part of the petitioners would amount to ragging. The detailed enquiry committee, in the circumstances, WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 6 recommended for appropriate action against the students involved in the incident, commensurate with the degree of their involvement. The Anti-ragging Committee of the Institute, thereupon, having regard to the findings arrived at by the detailed enquiry committee, recommended the Institute to suspend the petitioners in the writ petitions from the Institute and also from the hostels of the Institute with retrospective effect from 28.7.2016 to the date of registration of the winter semester of their course for the year 2017-'18, by way of punishment. Based on the recommendations made by the Anti-ragging Committee, the petitioners have been suspended accordingly by the Institute. Ext.P3 in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 and Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.2835 of 2017 are the communications issued to the petitioners in this connection. Since punishment was imposed on the petitioners as provided for in the Regulations, the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Institute in appeal before the appellate authority constituted under the Regulations. The appeals preferred by the petitioners were, however, rejected by the appellate authority. WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 7 Ext.P10 series in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 are the orders rejecting the appeals preferred by the petitioners therein and Ext.P9 in W.P.(C) No.2835 of 2017 is the order rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner therein. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decisions aforesaid of the authorities.
5. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed supporting the impugned decisions on behalf of the Institute, in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016. The files pertaining to the proceedings initiated against the petitioners were also made available.
6. Heard the learned at counsel for the petitioners as also the learned counsel for the Institute.
7. Though the victim did not prefer any complaint to the authorities about the incident on the relevant day, it is seen that he had informed the incident immediately to his parents. The files indicate that the father of the victim and some of his close relatives came to the Institute hostel, where the victim was residing, on coming to know of the incident on the same day night itself at about 11.45 pm. It is seen that the WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 8 parents of the victim thereupon reported the incident to the Manager of the hostel and the Manager had, in turn, informed the matter to the Warden of the hostel. Thereafter, since the victim complained of headache and other discomforts, the warden of the hostel made arrangements for removing the victim to the Medical College Hospital for treatment on the same day night itself. The files indicate that the wardens of the hostels have visited the victim on the next day at the Medical College Hospital. It is seen that the victim was discharged from the Medical College Hospital on the next day afternoon. Immediately on the same day, the victim preferred a written complaint to the Chief Warden of the Institute. Even before the victim preferring a written complaint, the wardens of the Institute had informed the Dean of the Institute that an incident as stated by the victim in his written complaint had taken place in the boys' hostel, on the relevant day. Likewise, the incident was reported by the Chief Warden of the Institute also to the Dean of the Institute on 29.7.2016 itself. The incident was reported by the Anti-ragging Squad of the Institute also WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 9 thereafter on 2.8.2016. Later, on 8.8.2016, the preliminary enquiry committee constituted by the Dean of the Institute submitted a report stating that the victim was ragged by a group of third Semester students by forcefully taking him to Room No.237 of Mega Hostel for Boys on a two-wheeler at about 12.15 Hrs on 28.7.2016, by physically abusing him, by keeping him in unauthorized custody for about an hour and also by making him to recharge a senior student's mobile phone for Rs.30.00. The circumstances aforesaid are sufficient to hold that the victim was subjected to ill-treatment on 28.7.2016 by a group of senior students by locking him inside in one of their hostel rooms.
8. As noted above, the stand taken by the petitioners is that they are not involved in the incident. The petitioners, however, admit their presence in the campus on the relevant day. Likewise, the fifth petitioner admits that he saved his mobile phone number in the mobile phone of the victim at the boys' hostel on the relevant day. True, the victim does not name the students who have subjected him to ill-treatment, in WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 10 the written complaint preferred by him. It is, however, stated by the victim in the complaint that about ten students were involved in the incident. The report given by the wardens of the Institute to the Dean of the Institute on 29.7.2016 morning at 11.35 am. indicates that the fifth petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 and his parents have informed the warden of the boys hostel that petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 were involved in the incident. It is seen that on the same day, after conducting a preliminary enquiry, the Chief Warden of the Institute submitted a report to the Dean of the Institute stating that petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 and three other students named therein were involved in the incident. The enquiry conducted by the Anti-ragging Squad of the Institute thereafter also revealed that the petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 are among the persons who have ill-treated the victim on the relevant day. In the report submitted thereafter by the preliminary enquiry committee constituted by the Dean of the Institute, it is stated that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 and six others were WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 11 involved in the incident. In the statement filed by the victim before the detailed enquiry committee, it is stated that he can identify the students involved in the incident. It is seen from the files that the applications containing their photographs preferred by the petitioners for admission in the Institute were shown to the victim in the course of the enquiry and he has identified the petitioners as persons who were involved in the incident. Endorsements were also made by the victim as regards the involvement of the respective petitioners on the rear side of the respective documents containing the photographs of the petitioners. The endorsement made by the victim as regards the involvement of the first petitioner in W.P. (C) No.38867 of 2016 in the incident on the rear side of the document containing his photograph reads thus:
"He was present in the room to which I was taken to. He slapped me on the face hardly. He along with another senior took me back to the chemical engg. Dept. on a scooter after the incident."
Similar endorsements have been made by the victim as regards the involvement of the remaining petitioners also in the WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 12 incident, on the rear side of the respective documents containing their photographs. The endorsement made by the victim as regards the involvement of the second petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 in the incident reads thus :
"He came to the room to which I was taken to. He arrived a little time after I was taken in. He slapped me in the face hard."
The endorsement made by the victim as regards the involvement of the third petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 in the incident reads thus :
"I remember that he was present in the room to which I was taken. I remember him to have slapped me in the face and abused me verbally."
The endorsement made by the victim as regards the involvement of the fourth petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 in the incident reads thus :
"He told me on the day of orientation programme itself that he wanted to see me alone. He was present in the room at the time of incident. He arrived a little while after the others started beating me. He slapped me in the face."
The endorsement made by the victim as regards the fifth WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 13 petitioner in W.P.(C) No.38867 of 2016 in the incident reads thus :
"He was there in the room at the time of the incident. He beat me and abused me verbally. He slapped me in the face hardly. I came to know that he was the person who saved his mobile number as "SENIOR I" in my phone."
The endorsement made by the victim as regards the involvement of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2835 of 2017 in the incident reads thus :
"He was there in the room to which I was taken to. He slapped me many times hardly and also abused me verbally. He was one of the persons who hurt me the most by beating me."
It is seen that since the photographs affixed on the applications for admission submitted by the petitioners were of passport size, with the consent of the petitioners, their photographs were taken afresh and A4 size copies of the said photographs were shown to the victim for the purpose of identification and it is with reference to the said photographs the victim has identified WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 14 the petitioners as persons involved in the incident and made the endorsements aforesaid. The aforesaid materials clearly establish that the petitioners were among the senior students involved in the incident referred to by the victim in the complaint preferred by him.
9. The question to be examined next is as to whether the ill-treatment towards the victim by the petitioners and others would amount to ragging. As noted above, the proceedings which culminated in the impugned decisions is one initiated under the Regulations. Regulation 3 of the Regulations issued by the UGC defines ragging thus :
"3. What constitutes Ragging.- Ragging constitutes one or more of any of the following acts:
a. any conduct by any student or students whether by words spoken or written or by an act which has the effect of teasing, treating or handling with rudeness a fresher or any other student;
b. indulging in rowdy or indisciplined activities by any student or students which causes or is likely to cause annoyance, hardship, physical or psychological harm or to raise fear or apprehension thereof in any fresher or any other student;
WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 15
c. asking any student to do any act which such student will not in the ordinary course do and which has the effect of causing or generating a sense of shame, or torment or embarrassment so as to adversely affect the physique or psyche of such fresher or any other student;
d. any act by a senior student that prevents, disrupts or disturbs the regular academic activity of any other student or a fresher;
e. exploiting the services of a fresher or any other student for completing the academic tasks assigned to an individual or a group of students.
f. any act of financial extortion or forceful expenditure burden put on a fresher or any other student by students;
g. any act of physical abuse including all variants of it: sexual abuse, homosexual assaults, stripping, forcing obscene and lewd acts, gestures, causing bodily harm or any other danger to health or person;
h. any act or abuse by spoken words, emails, post, public insults which would also include deriving perverted pleasure, vicarious or sadistic thrill from actively or passively participating in the discomfiture to fresher or any other student;
i. any act that affects the mental health and self- confidence of a fresher or any other student with or without an intent to derive a sadistic pleasure or showing off power, authority or superiority by a student over any fresher or any other student."
In this context, it is relevant to note that the specific case of the petitioners is that there was only a trivial incident of exchange WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 16 of words in the campus on the relevant day. In so far as it is found that the victim was locked in one of the hostel rooms by a group of senior students and ill-treated him and that the petitioners were among the said senior students, it is unnecessary, according to me, to consider whether the overt acts attributed against the petitioners are true, for the purpose of deciding the question whether the petitioners are responsible for the incident. In the light of the definition of 'ragging' as contained in the Regulations, I have no hesitation to hold that the conduct of the petitioners and others in forcibly locking the victim in one of the hostel rooms and their conduct in teasing and ill-treating him would amount to ragging. The conduct of the fifth petitioner in W.P.C.No.38867 of 2016 in directing the victim to recharge his mobile phone would also amount to ragging, for, the victim may not do such acts in the ordinary course and, for, the same would amount to financial extortion.
10. Now I shall deal with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 17 petitions is that the contentions raised by the petitioners in the appeals preferred by them against the decision taken by the Institute have not been considered by the appellate authority. A perusal of the orders passed by the appellate authority indicates that the only question considered by the appellate authority while dealing with the appeals preferred by the petitioners is the question whether the materials on record would justify the involvement of the petitioners in the ragging incident. In the circumstances, though it is lawful for this Court to remit the appeals to the appellate authority for a fresh decision, I do not propose to adopt the said course, as a fresh decision in this regard may not be likely before the expiry of the period of suspension imposed on the petitioners by way of punishment. Instead, I propose to deal with the contentions raised by the petitioners in the appeals preferred before the appellate authority in this proceedings as the said contentions are seen raised in this proceedings also.
11. Though very many grounds have been raised by the petitioners in the writ petitions, the learned counsel for WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 18 the petitioners have focussed on three aspects. Utmost emphasis was given to the contention that there was only a trivial incident of exchange of words between the students in the campus on the relevant day and the said incident was blown out of proportion and characterised as an act of ragging. It was also the contention of the petitioners that the materials on record are not sufficient to hold that the petitioners were involved in the incident. It was the further contention of the petitioners that at any rate, the punishment imposed on the petitioners is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the guilt established against them.
12. In order to substantiate the contention of the petitioners that the incident took place in the campus on 28.7.2016 was only a trivial incident of exchange of words, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that no complaint whatsoever has been lodged by the victim about the incident on the same day. According to the petitioners, had there been an incident as alleged by the victim, he would have certainly lodged a complaint to the Institute on the same day itself. It WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 19 was further pointed out by the petitioners in this connection that under the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, it was obligatory for the head of the institution to inform the incidents of this nature to the police if it is found prima facie that the complaint is true, and since the said course was not adopted by the head of the institution in the instant case, it cannot be said that there was an incident of ragging at all in the campus on the relevant day. According to the petitioners, if eight students have slapped hard on the face of a person as alleged by the victim, the same would have certainly caused a serious injury or at least a visible injury to the victim. It is pointed out that there was no visible injury at all on the face of the victim and his complaint as stated in the medical records was only that of head ache. According to the petitioners, the case of the victim that he was hit hard on his face by a group of students is, therefore, utter falsehood. It was also pointed by the petitioners, based on materials on record, that the victim had gone to the mess for lunch after the alleged incident and had attended the afternoon session of the classes on the said day. WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 20 According to the petitioners, the same would not have been the natural human conduct, had there been an incident as alleged by the victim. I am unable to accept the aforesaid arguments to hold that there was no incident of ragging in the campus on the relevant day. True, the victim has not preferred any written complaint to the Institute immediately after the incident. As stated above, the materials on record indicate that the victim has informed the incident to his parents immediately after the incident, as otherwise, they would not have reached the Institute hostel on the same day night itself. As such, merely for the reason that the victim has not preferred any written complaint before the Institute, it cannot be said that there was no incident of ragging at all on the relevant day. Likewise, it is seen that on receipt of the complaint from the victim, the authorities have decided to deal with the incident in accordance with the Regulations. It appears that it is on account of the said reason that the said incident was not reported to the police. True, it is obligatory for the head of the institution to inform the incidents of ragging to the police under the Kerala Prohibition of WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 21 Ragging Act, 1998. But, merely for the reason that the head of the institution has omitted to inform the ragging incident to the police, it cannot be contended that there was no ragging incident at all in the campus. It is unnecessary to consider the contention of the petitioners that the case set up by the victim as regards the physical abuse made on him by the senior students is untrue, as I have already found that materials on record establish a case of ragging dehors the specific overt acts attributed against the petitioners.
13. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the case of the petitioners that they were not involved in the incident was that the petitioners were not named by the victim in the written complaint lodged by him and that they were not physically identified by the victim. It is seen that the victim has stated categorically in the statement given before the detailed enquiry committee that he can identify the students involved in the incident. As noted above, the records indicate that since the photographs affixed on the applications for admission WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 22 submitted by the petitioners were of passport size, with the consent of the petitioners, their photographs were taken afresh and A4 size copies of the said photographs were shown to the victim for the purpose of identification and it is with reference to the said photographs that the victim has identified the petitioners as persons involved in the incident. I do not think that a test identification parade as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure is neither required nor contemplated in an enquiry of this nature. I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that there was no illegality in the victim identifying the senior students involved in the incident based on their photographs.
14. What remains to be considered is the contention of the petitioners that the punishment imposed on them is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the guilt established against them. As noted above, the specific case of the petitioners is that if a group of persons physically assault another, as alleged by the victim, there would have been certainly visible injuries on his body. According to the petitioners, there were no injuries at all on the body of the WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 23 victim as evident from the medical records and that the only complaint of the victim at the time when his parents reached the hostel was that he was suffering from pain over head and face. Further, it is the case of the petitioners that the victim had gone to the mess on the relevant day after the incident for his lunch and had attended his afternoon classes as well. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid circumstances would indicate beyond doubt that there was no physical assault on the body of the victim and there was only an incident of exchange of words. There is force in these contentions. On an evaluation the materials on record, I am inclined to hold that the case on hand was not a case where the victim was assaulted physically by the senior students with the intention of assaulting him, as the materials on record do not reveal any motive for the same. Further, had there been an occurrence as alleged by the victim, certainly there would have been some indications of the same on his body. From the materials on record, it can only be inferred that the incident is one in which the senior students have poked the victim for the purpose of teasing, as is usual in WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 24 colleges. In the said view of the matter, the suspension of the petitioners from the Institute practically for three semesters is a disproportionate punishment. True, ragging is a social menace which has to be eradicated completely from the campuses and the same can be achieved only by imposing appropriate punishments to those who indulge in such activities. Appropriate punishments to such persons are warranted also for the reason that such punishments will have a deterrence on others. But, at the same time, having regard to the nature of the incident as found and the behaviour pattern of the students of that age group, I am of the view that suspension for a semester would have been the appropriate punishment. It is seen that the petitioners could not join for the winter semester of their course for the year 2016-17. As such, they have to be permitted to join in the semester after the winter semester of their course for the year 2016-17.
In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in part and the impugned orders are modified limiting the period of suspension of the petitioners to the date of registration of the WPC 38867/16 & 2835/17 25 semester after the winter semester of their course for the year 2016-17.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
tgs (true copy)