Kerala High Court
Rahul M.Ramesh vs University Of Calicut on 26 April, 2016
Author: A.M.Shaffique
Bench: A.M.Shaffique
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/28TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 32230 of 2016 (C)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. RAHUL M.RAMESH
S/O M.S. RAMESH, AGED 20,
2ND SEMISTER B.S.C COMPUTER SCIENCE,
SRI.C.ACHUTHA MENON GOVERNMENT COLLEGE,
KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR- 680 014 RESIDING AT
MANACHARAMBATH HOUSE, CHIRAKKAKODE,
KALLADAM, VELLANIKKARA P.O.THRISSUR- 680 654
2. NIKHIL P.M.
S/OP.M.MOHANAN, AGED 20 YEARS,
2ND SEMISTER B.A. ECONOMICS, SRI.C.ACHUTHA MENON
GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, KUTTANELLUR, THRISSUR- 680 014
RESIDING AT PARAKUNNI HOUSE,VANIAMPARA
P.O.THRISSUR- 680 652
BY ADVS.SRI.PRATHAP. S.R.K.
SRI.P.L.VENU KUMAR
SRI.VENU VALIYA PARAMBIL
SRI. V.G.SURENDRAN
SMT.A.S.SANGEETHA
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENIPALLAM, MALAPPURAM DIST- 673 635
2. THE VICE CHANCELLOR
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENIPALLAM, MALAPPURAM DIST- 673 635
3. THE PRINCIPAL
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT,
THENIPALLAM, MALAPPURAM DIST- 673 635
BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 32230 of 2016 (C)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE
1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE
2ND PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER CERTIFICATE
NO.13/16-17 DATED 26-04-2016
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
CALICUT UNIVERSITY FIRST ORDINANCE, 1978
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF UO NO.8973/2016/ADMN DATED 23-07-
2016 ISSUED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUDICATION
EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31-08-2016 IN
WPC 20484/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
---------------------------------
W.P (C) No. 32230 of 2016
---------------------------------
Dated this the 20th day of October, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Petitioners challenge Exhibit P7 by which a decision had been taken by the University on 23.07.2016 in the matter relating to a disciplinary action against the petitioners. By Exhibit P7, the Board for Adjudication of Student's Grievances had considered the complaint filed by the petitioners and had interfered with the punishment imposed by the College, thereby converting the punishment of dismissal to suspension for one year. Further directions are also been issued, which reads as under:
"1. To convert the punishment from dismissal to suspension for one year. Also to review their behaviour and if they are fit to join the class, to readmit them to the next academic year or to extend the punishment for another period of suspension, if they are not fit for readmission.
2. To intimate the conduct of the students to the University during the period of rustication.
3. To intimate the above recommendation to the complainants."
2. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the aforesaid action by the College as well as the University is W.P (C) No. 32230 of 2016 2 illegal and so far the petitioners were not involved in the alleged activities which resulted in the disciplinary action against the petitioners. According to the first petitioner, he was the Chairman of the College Union and the second petitioner was the University Union Counselor of the University for 2015-2016. They are involved in various sports and other activities and had participated in the National Service Scheme as well. However, alleging an incident relating to consumption of liquor, the Ollur Police had arrested the petitioners while they were standing outside the college campus along with three other students of the College. Police registered a case against them and they were released on bail. On the basis of the crime registered against them, disciplinary committee was constituted who conducted an enquiry in the matter. Memo was issued to the petitioners and they were directed to obtain Transfer Certificate or they should be sent out by issuing Transfer Certificate. Petitioners submitted representation to the Principal of the College to exonerate them from the charges levelled by the disciplinary committee. However, the college authorities took a decision to dismiss the petitioners from the College and the Transfer Certificates were also W.P (C) No. 32230 of 2016 3 issued. Petitioners preferred a complaint before the Board for Adjudication of Student's Grievances, who after hearing the petitioners, passed the aforesaid order.
3. The main contention urged by the petitioners is that the crime registered by the police was a fabricated story. That apart, the incident happened outside the college campus. If the disciplinary action continues as stated above, their future prospects would be disrupted. Under these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.
4. Perusal of Exhibit P7 order would show that the Board for Adjudication of Student's Grievances had considered the complaint filed by the petitioners and had converted the order of dismissal to suspension for one order. It is observed that the complainants admitted that they have consumed alcohol during the relevant time. This issue projected by the college authorities against the petitioners admittedly are with reference to the discipline of an institution. In academic matters, when a question of discipline arises, the interference by this Court is very limited. It is for the Principal of the College and the management to decide as to how the disciplinary action should be initiated and what steps should be W.P (C) No. 32230 of 2016 4 taken to prevent such activities in the College. In the present case, the action had been taken by the Principal in accordance with the prescribed procedures. Under such circumstances, there is nothing wrong on the part of the College to have arrived at a decision. However, as per regulations, the petitioners were entitled to prefer an appeal before the Board for Adjudication of Student's Grievances. The said authority had also gone into the factual aspects involved in the matter and had opined that reduction in punishment can be given and thereafter the conduct of the students will have to be monitored by necessary intimation to the University during the period of rustication. Having regard to the fact that appropriate concession had already been extended to the petitioners based on the factual aspects involved in the matter, I do not think that in the absence of any arbitrariness or illegality in Exhibit P7, it shall be open for this Court to interfere mainly on compassionate grounds. It is true that petitioners may loose one year during the academic career and the fact remains that this eventuality had happened on account of a situation which was not at all conducive for a student's conduct but also for the functioning of the college. Under such W.P (C) No. 32230 of 2016 5 circumstances, when an appropriate decision had already been taken by the Principal and thereafter it was interfered by the University, I do not think that a further interference is called for with reference to the above decision taken by the University.
Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE JUDGE DMR/-