Delhi High Court
M.A.A. Abu Ghunima Nazer Zohir El Yazgi vs Union Of India And Anr. on 2 September, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993IIIAD(DELHI)841, 51(1993)DLT679, 1994(28)DRJ64
Author: D.P. Wadhwa
Bench: D.P. Wadhwa
JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) Since the incident is common, by this judgment we will decide both the writ petitions (CWP 2120/93 and Cwp 2411/93). Both the petitioners in these two writ petitions are Engineering students studying in the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (I.I.T.). There are two respondents. First respondent is the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, and the second is the Director of the I.I.T. The petitioners seek a mandamus to have the impugned orders against them set aside, and for allowing them to continue their studies in the I.I.T. Against Abu Ghunima (petitioner in Cw 2120/93) the following order was made on 14 January 1993 by the second respondent :- "THE Institute Disciplinary Committee, at its meeting held on January 12, 1993 considered the incident of a fight between two groups of Palestinian students in September 1992. On the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee, the Director has imposed the penalty of termination of registration on Mr. Maher Ayash Abad Abu Ghunima, Entry No. 90234 Me, who was found to have actively participated in the fight leading to injuries to a fellow student. Mr. Abu Ghunima is also debarred from entry into the Institute Campus. Pursuant to above decision, the penalties as aforesaid are here by imposed on Mr. Abu Ghunima. "
And against El Yazgi (petitioner Cwp No. 2411/93)) the impugned order, also of the same date, was as under:- "THE Institute Disciplinary Committee, at its meeting held on January 12, 1993, considered the incident of a fight between two groups of Palestinian students in September 1992. On the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee, the Director has imposed the penalty of termination of registration for two semesters (II Semester 92/93 & I Semester 93/94) on Mr. Naser Zohair El Yazgi, Entry No.90024CE, who was found to have actively participated in the fight. Mr. Yazgi is also debarred from entry into the Institute Campus. Pursuant to above decision, the penalties as aforesaid are hereby imposed on Mr. Nazer El Yazi."
(2) As would be seen from these two orders, the reason for imposing varying penalties on the two petitioners was that in the cases of Abu Ghunima it is stated that he actively participated in the fight "leading to injuries to a fellow student", while in the case of petitioner Yazgi it is mentioned that though he actively participated in the fight the words "leading to injuries to a fellow student" are not there. It is the admitted case that on 26 September 1992 in the I.I.T. a fight took place between two groups of Palestinian students. Though the fight was by way of punches and kicks, some weapon, namely, NAN-CHAKS (a sort of hitting weapon with a chain between two wooden handles), motorcycle chain, etc., were freely used. The fight broke out after a certain function organized by one group and in this fight it is stated that certain guests, who were also foreigners, also took part. It is not necessary for us to go into the reasons which led to fight, or the nature of the fight and the injuries sustained by certain persons. The fight certainly created an indiscipline in the I.I.T. The Dean of Students called for are port from the Foreign Students Adviser about the fight who then submitted his report. Thereafter, the Dean of Students constituted a committee of three Professors of the I.I.T. to enquire into the incident and to make recommendations. This was on 8 October 1992. This Committee identified the students in the two groups having rival political sympathies and were not generally on cordial terms, and as to how the fighting ensued and the nature of involvement of the students. The Committee made certain recommendations as well. The Committee named both the petitioners being directly involved in the fight along with a third student. Meanwhile, an explanation had been called from the students as to their involvement and they submitted their representations. Then the matter went to I.I.T. Discipline Committee.A notice dated 12 January 1993 was issued to the petitioners and other students telling them that it was proposed to consider the fight between the two groups of Palestinian students in september 1992 and they were asked directly to appear before the Disciplinary Committee. They were heard. The Disciplinary Committee which consisted of Mr. Subhash Chander, Deputy Director as Chairman; Mr. D.P. Agarwal, Dean of Students, and Mr. R.N. Nagpal.D.R. (UGS)as Secretary, submitted its report on the following day to the Director, I.I.T., the second respondent. In the minutes it is mentioned that all the students including the petitioners were given opportunities to present an account of the happening on 26 September 1992 and that after a careful consideration of the case the Disciplinary Committee in the case of both the petitioners recommended as under:-
(I)Mr. M A A Abu Ghunima (90234) had actively participated in the fight leading to injuries to a fellow student. The Disciplinary Committee recommended termination of his registration with immediate effect. Further, he may be debarred from entry into the campus.
(II)Mr. Naser A El Yazgi had also actively participated in the fight. The Disciplinary Committee recommended termination of his registration for two semesters, viz.II Sem. 92-93 and I Sem. 93-94. Further, he may be debarred from entry into the campus. "
(3) We may also mention that though the minutes of the I.I.T. Disciplinary Committee are signed by aforesaid three professors, the Disciplinary Committee consisted of as many as sixteen professors who heard the petitioners on 12 January 1993. Thereafter, the Director, I.I.T. passed the impugned orders against the petitioners and others who were,. involved in the fight.
(4) It was pointed out to us that no proper opportunity had been given to the petitioners to represent their case and rules of justice have been violated. We do not agree with such acontention. But during the course of hearing we desired that perhaps if the petitioners apologise the matter could reconsidered by the second respondent The petitioners were again heard by the I.I.T. Disciplinary Committee which again consisted of thirteen professors and the Committee reaffirmed its earlier decision.
(5) It is the question of discipline in the I.I.T. We find that before the orders were made against the petitioners proper opportunity had been granted to them. No malafides or any other motives are alleged against the second resp6ndent in passing the impugned orders. He has acted fairly and reasonably, and in the interest of the I.I.T. In the case of Ashish Bhateja v. Indian Institute of Technology (C.W.P.No.4042/93, decided on 26 August 1993), where also a student of the I.I.T. was involved and punishment was awarded by the Director, I.I.T., for his taking part in the ragging, we had occasion to remark that rules of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket and they vary from situation to situation and from case to case. We can only leaf firm and say that rules of natural justice depend upon facts of each case. We do not find that rules of natural justice have been violated in the present case and we would not, therefore, like to interfere in the punishments imposed upon the petitioners.
(6) There is, however, one thing which we would like to observe on the question of .quantum of punishment awarded to petitioner Abu Ghunima. The enquiry report given by three professors which identified the petitioners as belonging to group 'A' and having been directly involved in the fight mentioned that "Ghunima appears to have used a small sharp- edged device (may be a pocket knife or even motorcycle key) while hitting." It is also the finding of the Committee that group 'A' of the Palestinian students "thought it fit to take the law in their own hands. They seemed to be well prepared for the fight as some of them had weapons. Some of them also changed their clothes before and/or after the fight." This would rather show to us that all the group 'A' students perhaps would have been equally guilty. In this view of the matter the punishment imposed on the petitioner Ghunima appears to be rather harsh. We hope that the second respondent will reconsider the case of the petitioner Ghunima and may, perhaps, award the same punishment as awarded to the other petitioner at Yazgi. We would, however, say no more on the subject, and it will be entirely for the second respondent to take into consideration all the aspects of the case. With these observations, these petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.