Karnataka High Court
T.T. Chakravarthy Yuvraj And Others vs Principal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Medical ... on 5 November, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR1997KANT261, AIR 1997 KARNATAKA 261, (1998) 1 ESC 440
Author: R.P. Sethi
Bench: R.P. Sethi
ORDER Rajendra Basu, J.
1. These appeals arise out of an order made in the writ petitions filed by the appellants in which they challenged an order made by the Principal of the respondent-College expelling them from the college with effect from 20th November, 1995.
2. On the allegation that on the night of 13-11-1995 at about 11.30 p.m. the bust of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar installed in front of the Academic floor of the respondent-college was desecrated, defiled and several acts of misconduct were allegedly committed by some students of the college, an enquiry was instituted. After recording the statements of 7 persons and on intimation to the students who were allegedly involved in the incident, of whom 4 appeared before the respondent, the Principal took action indicated above. Aggrieved by that action, the appellants preferred writ petitions challenging the same.
3. Before the learned single Judge, the contentions urged are : (i) that the principles of natural justice have not been duly observed consistent with the gravity of the charge and the action taken thereof; (ii) that even on the material available on record, no reasonable person could draw an inference of guilt against the appellants so as to hold that the appellants are liable for the misconduct alleged against them; (iii) that under S. 62 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 the final authority in the matter of discipline is the Vice-Chancellor and therefore the Principal could not take any action in the matter, and (iv) that the only power that could have been exercised by the respondent being the Head of the Institution is to the extent of 'rustication' not amounting to 'explusion.' The learned single Judge held that the principles of natural justice applicable in a particular case will have to be borne in mind and there cannot be any uniform or universal rule applicable to all cases. Considering the nature of the allegation made against the appellants, the Principal had to act with necessary despatch and therefore the enquiry held by him was fair and just and the appellants herein had reasonable opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Principal and therefore it could not be said that there was any violation of principles of natural justice.
4. The learned single Judge on examination of the material on record was of the view that there was sufficient material to find the appellants guilty of charges levelled against them. On the question whether the Principal had the authority to take disciplinary action against the students, the learned single Judge held in favour of the respondent that under S. 62(2)(b) of the Act a punishment of rustication from college could be imposed by the Head of the Institution. The expression 'rustication' used in S. 62(2)(b) includes within its sweep the expression 'explusion' of students also and therefore rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellants.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent had raised a contention that the writ petition was not maintainable against a private college. The learned single Judge adverting to the contention raised by the respondent that the college being run by a Trust is not a State or Instrumentality of State for purpose of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India rejected the same relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, and it was also noticed that the Principal of the College was exercising certain statutory powers. The learned single Judge also noticed that the law is well settled that such petitions are maintainable.
6. First we shall take up the question raised on behalf of the respondent that the writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch as the respondent is run by a private Trust. It is no doubt true that an institution run by a private Trust is not an instrumentality of State for purpose of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India unless it falls within the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia's case. In that case, considering the fact that the college was sponsored by the State, the Supreme Court held that it is necessarily an instrumentality of the State. To decide whether a private body is an instrumentality or agency of the State, certain tests are adopted by the Courts -- (i) whether the functions of such body are governmental in nature of functions closely related thereto; (ii) the volume of financial assistance received from the State; (iii) quantum of State control; (iv) whether any statutory duties are imposed upon such body and the character of a private body may change with respect to its different functions. In this case, the power to enforce discipline is available under S. 62 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. The power to punish arises in terms of S. 62(2) of the Act. Considering the nature of the functions carried on by the respondent viz., imparting medical education, which would otherwise be a function if the State, and the fact that the Principal of the college being Head of the Institution is exercising powers of disciplinary authority which arises under the statute, necessarily. We must hold a writ would lie against such an act even in respect of private body. On that basis, we must affirm the view taken by the learned single Judge and reject the contention raised on behalf of the respondent
7. Broadly speaking, the right of a student to attend a college or University is subject to the condition that ho complies with the scholastic and disciplinary standards and the competent authority in the college, may, in exercise of broad discretion, formulate and enforce reasonable rules and regulations in both respects and the Courts will not interfere in such matters in the absence of abuse of such discretion. In Corpus Juris Secundum-Volume 14 -- (para) (sic) 26, it is stated as follows :
"Broadly speaking, the right of a student to attend a public or private college or University is subject to the condition that he complies with its scholastic and disciplinary requirements, and the proper college authorities may in the exercise of a broad discretion formulate and enforce reasonable rules arid regulations in both respects. The Courts will not interfere in the absence of an abuse of such discretion."
It is further stated that -- "The Courts have upheld the validity of a regulation reserving to the University the right to dismiss a student at any time for any reason without divulging its reason, the general purpose of the regulation being recited as one to safeguard ideals of scholarship and moral atmosphere and under a regulation ;of the latter description, the University does not have the right of arbitrary dismissal, but the reason for its dismissal must fall within the classes specified of preserving ideals of scholarship or moral atmosphere, although the University authorities have a wide discretion in the matter and the Courts will be slow to disturb their decision as to dismissal of a student under such a regulation."
8. In the absence of any clear conclusion as to abuse of such powers of discipline, the Courts will not interfere with the rules adopted. Within reasonable limits, the power of the Head of the Institution is plenary and complete and unless such rules and regulations are found to be unauthorised or is palpably unreasonable, the Courts will not annul or revise them nor will the Courts afford relief in the course of enforcement of such rules, unless those whose duty is to enforce them arbitrarily and for extraneous considerations. The wisdom of the policy manifested by the rules and regulations is a matter within the discretion of the college authorities and beyond interference by the Courts and with which except in extraordinary cases, the Courts will not interfere. As regards the right of hearing, the law is settled and stated to be that a college cannot dismiss the student except on a hearing in accordance with a lawful form of procedure, giving him the notice of the charge and an opportunity to hear the testimony against him, to question witnesses, and to rebut the evidence. While the students are at liberty to terminate their relationship with the Institution at any time, it does not follow that the college has similar right. The power to expel a student is an attribute of the governance of the educational institution. A college cannot arbitrarily dismiss a student. A contract comes into existence by reason of the admission of students and by payment of requisite fee between the student and the college, however, containing two implied conditions : (1) that no student shall be arbitrarily expelled therefrom; and (2) that the student will submit himself to reasonable rules and regulations for the breach of which, in a proper case, he may be expelled, and that he will not be guilty of such misconduct as will be subversive of the discipline of the University or College. Where the authorities of a College or University act with discretion in expelling a student for violation of a reasonable rule or regulation, their action will not be interfered with or set aside by the Courts. Only where it is clear that such an action with respect to a student has not been an honest exercise of discretion, or has arisen from some motive extraneous to the purposes committed to that discretion, the Courts may be called upon for relief. The power to expel or suspend a student for violation of the lawful regulations and even in the absence of any powers vested by a statute, there is an inherent or implied power in the educational institution to promulgate the college discipline. Express statutory authority to suspend or expel a student does not alter the relative rights and duties of the college authorities and pupils. Such statutes merely give the authorities the power already inherent in them and leave it subject to the limitations. Although the discretion vested in the college authorities in this respect is very broad, they will not be permitted to act arbitrarily. It is the duty of every Principal or Teacher in-charge of a college or school to maintain discipline and good order therein and to require all pupils a proper performance of their duties. To enable such teacher or principal to discharge his duties effectively, he must necessarily have the power to enforce the discipline. Thus it follows that he must have the power to suspend or expel a pupil for any breach of discipline or for any misconduct injurious to the good administration of the school or morals of other pupils whether explicitly covered by rules or not.
9. The college has the power to admit students to its college. The power of admission must include the power to suspend, dismiss or remove a student from the college for a power to do a thing will include the power to undo the thing. Thus, every college must be expected to possess the power to suspend or dismiss a student from the college. If that is so, we have to understand the provisions of S. 62 in that light. Section 62(2) (b) of the Act with which we are concerned reads as follows :
"62(2)(b) -- the punishment of rustication from a college or a hostel or an institution shall, be imposed by the Head of the college or hostel or institution concerned."
The meaning to be given to the expression 'rustication' has been considered by this Court in the case of B. P. Puttaraju v. Bangalore University, . A learned single Judge of this Court observed that in relation to educational institutions the term 'rustication' must be understood as expulsion for a given period of time and no more. The learned counsel on either side presented to us a very scholarly dissertation as to the etymology and the philology of the expression 'rustication' with several decisions to support their respective stands to construe the powers of the Principal under S. 62(2)(b) of the Act. However attractive the arguments of either side be, we are not lured to examine those aspects in the view we propose to take.
10. The learned single Judge in the course of the order took note of the general power of the authority, deterioration in standards of discipline and moral values and in particular the learned single Judge felt that where there is a serious inroad into the discipline of an educational institution, the Courts must take very strict view and should not at all interfere with the orders made by the disciplinary authorities of the college. It is also noticed that the educational institutions cannot follow the normal rules of principles of natural justice, but what should be tested is whether the procedure adopted by the Head of the Institution is fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. If that test is satisfied, the learned single Judge took the view that it was proper to uphold the order of the disciplinary authority.
11. The facts as analysed by the Principal and the learned single Judge in the course of his order reveal that on the night of 13-11-1995 the appellants herein came to the spot where the bust of late Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar is installed, they played music, consumed alcohol and it is thereafter they poured alcohol along with various eatables on the bust and they removed spectacles thereby resulting in defilement and desecration of the bust of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. The gist of the charge against the appellants is that Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who is a venerated hero of this country, the architect of the Constitution and a great patriot stood defiled and desecrated, by reason of the acts of the appellants. The attempts of the security staff to save them from such acts proved futile as these students were totally out of control. They did not heed to the implorations of the security staff but intimidated them claiming that they are wealthy and influential. They threatened them with dire consequences, if they were interfered with. After they left the place the security staff cleaned up the area to the extent they could and they lodged a complaint with their superiors, who thereafter informed the Principal. The Principal made certain preliminary enquiries and then sent for the students in question of whom 3 students did not appear and the remaining came to his office. The Principal held an enquiry to ascertain as to who were responsible for the incidents of the previous night; that one of the students by name Chakravarthy wrote out the names of certain students and that he also indicated the car number that had been used on the previous night to come to the college. The security staff was sent for those who were eye-witnesses to the incident and recorded their statements in the enquiry as also the statements of certain other persons. The security staff are said to have identified seven students, four of whom were present personally and three on the basis of photographs from the admission forms which were in the college records. As a result of this enuiry, the Principal concluded that the seven students were guilty of the acts of serious misconduct and expelled them from the college with immediate effect. It also transpires that the Principal lodged a complaint with the police with which we are not presently concerned in these proceedings.
12. The appellants contended before us as they did before the learned single Judge that they have not committed any acts of breach or misconduct. The haste with which the Principal conducted the enquiry on 14-11-1995 will indicate that there was complete breach of the principles of natural justice for they were not given any formal show cause notice indicating as to on what charges the enquiry was being conducted. They were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The stand of the respondent is that the Principal sent for the students concerned of whom four appeared and three remained absent and in the course of the enquiry, the security guard Suresh identified four of the students either personally or on the basis of their photographs and one student by name Chakravarthy had given a written statement stating that there were 5 persons including him in his car and came to the spot at 11.30 p.m. on 13-11-1995 and indicated the number of the car in which he came. He is stated to have admitted to have taken drinks, but denied having taken away the spectacles from the bust of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. The other students denied involvement in the incident and all of them refused to sign the statement recorded. The principal relied on the identification made by the security guard Suresh who was present at the time when the incident took place. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that no enquiry had been conducted at all on 14-11-1995 and an order had been passed without holding any enquiry in the complaint lodged with the police on the afternoon of 14-11-1995, the names of the appellants do not figure thereto. If really any enquiry had been conducted on 14-11-1995, the names of various students would have been disclosed and therefore there was no reason to exclude the names of two persons in the complaint lodged with the police and this circumstance is fatal to the stand of the Principal that enquiry had taken place on 14-11-1995. For what reasons the names of two students had been omitted in the complaint to the police need not be gone into in these proceedings. When on the basis of the material available with the Principal, if he had chosen to take action on the basis of the report made by the security staff and their superiors after due investigation, in the nature and circumstance of the case cannot be said to be unfair. Though there is dispute between the Principal and one of the students, who is stated to have made a statement which indicates the various events that took place on the night of 13-11-1995, and when the veracity of that document is not questioned, it must be held that there was ample material before the Principal to proceed further in the matter.
13. The main argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is that in the wake of the incident that certain students had desecrated or defiled the bust of Dr. Ambedkar there was a public uproar and upheavel having political overtones, the Principal panicked and subjugated himself to pass the order impugned in these proceedings. It is therefore urged that the Principal was not a free agent of himself and ought to have awaited the result of the Commission of Inquiry constituted for the purpose in determining the correct position. When no specific charges were levelled against the students and were not given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, it is contended that the entire disciplinary proceedings resulting in their expulsion from the college is vitiated.
14. The object of enquiry by the Principal was to ascertain the true facts whether an incident had taken place as alleged on 13-11-1995 and who were the students involved in the same. That information was available from the security guard and the statement made by Chakravarthy -- one of the students. When the events were fresh in the memory of the security guard and the students and statements have been made by them and there is no reason to doubt their credibility, we do not think we should expect the Principal to hold a fresh enquiry after setting aside the present proceedings. The position of a Principal being Head of the Institution is that of a parent and the students being his wards, the manner in which the enquiry should he held cannot be put in a strait-jacket formula by issuance of a charge-sheet, recording of statements in the presence of students and allowing them to cross-examine such witnesses. When there was an upheavel as a result of the incident and to avoid further indiscipline, the Principal had to act immediately and when he did so after ascertaining the facts in the manner best known to him, this Court cannot impose the strict compliance with the principles of natural justice.
15. It is no doubt true that when the charges are serious enough, the students must be given a fair opportunity. But that would again depend upon the circumstances in each case. We have already stated that the position of a Principal is that of a parent and therefore it is certainly inherent within the scope of the authority of the parent to punish a ward and not necessarily after observing a detailed enquiry as adverted to earlier. Therefore, we agree with the findings recorded by the learned single Judge that the manner of conducting the enquiry or the conclusion reached by the Principal that the students concerned have been guilty of the charge of misconduct, are correct. We agree with the learned single Judge that there has been a fair enquiry in which the students also had an opportunity to participate by making their appropriate statements.
16. The only aspect that has really given us very anxious concern is the punishment that should be imposed upon the students. The learned single Judge has taken the view that when once the charges against students which are serious enough arc proved, the punishment that could be imposed also is within the discretion of the disciplinary authority and the Courts should not interfere with the same. The Courts also have taken note of the fact that when the punishment imposed is not commensurate with the charge, such action ought to he held arbitrary calling for interference with the same. In support of this proposition, we may advert to the decision of the Supreme Court in (Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India). In this decision, it is held that judicial review is not directed against a decision but is directed against the "Decision making process"; that the question of appropriate punishment, both in its choice and quantum, being within discretion of the disciplinary authority and the same has to suit the offence and the offender; that it should not be vindictive or unduly harsh or so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and the magnitude of punishment in itself conclusive evidence of bias; that the doctrine of proportionality as part of concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is otherwise within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority, if the decision of the authority even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic then the sentence would not be immune from correction; that perversity and irrationality are recognised grounds of judicial review. After enunciating this dicta, corrected the sentence awarded in that case.
17. In inflicting appropriate punishment, certain aspects have to be borne in mind. When the relationship of the Head of the Institution and the student is that of a parent and child, the punishment imposed should not result in any retribution or give vent to a feeling of wrath. The main purpose of punishment is to correct the fault of the student concerned by making him more alert in future and to hold out a warning to other students to be careful, so that they may not expose themselves to similar punishment and the approach is that of a parent towards an erring or misguided child. In order to not to attract the criciticm that the action is a result of arbitrariness, it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is commensurate with the magnitude of the fault. Certainly one cannot rationally or justly impose the same penalty for giving a slap to the one imposed for homicide. Unless the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that haying regard to the nature of the misconduct it would be totally unsafe to retain them in the college, the maximum penalty of expulsion from the college should not be imposed. If a lesser penalty can be imposed without jeopardising the interest of the college, the disciplinary authority cannot impose a maximum penalty of expulsion from the college. The concerned Head of the Institution must necessarily have an introspection and a rational faculty as to why lesser penalty cannot be imposed. In doing so, it should also be borne in mind that when the maximum penalty is imposed total ruination stares one in the eye rendering such student a vagabond as being unwanted both by the parents and the educational institution. Frustration that would result would seriously jeopardise young life. Every harsh order results in bitterness and arouses a feeling of antagonism and many a time turn a student into an anti-social element and in that way it results in more harm than good to the Society.
18. Young and inexperienced these students are, came to the college campus on the night of 13-11-1995 perhaps with a view to have a drink, eat and make merry. We can visualise a situation when these students being in a group did exactly what they would not have done individually for they were egged upon to do so and for the fear that they should not be branded as cowards perhaps to project themselves as heroes however misguided they may be. Being influenced by alcohol and false sense of security of being in a group, they must have been led to the unfortunate events. As a result of heady youthfulness and under the evil influence of Bacchus the students might have lost their mental poise so as not to treat the bust of Dr. Ambedkar with reverence it deserved. Though the acts of the appellants are not condonable or excusable. We should not be oblivious to the realities of matter so as to impose the highest punishment by expulsion of appellants from the college. A student in the hands of Principal is a child in the hands of a parent and a parent would never want the career of a child to be completely destroyed by expulsion which necessarily renders him unfit for any other career either, for no college would be willing to grant them admission to enable them to complete their studies thereby leading to such frustration and disappointment or despondency which may lead even either to suicide or turn them into anti-social elements. Therefore, we are of the view that to permanently put an end to their career would not be an appropriate punishment considering the fact that they had not indulged in any violence or acted in any premeditated manner violating the college discipline as such but their spontaneous acts had resulted in showing disrespect to Baba Ambedkar. However, we think even Baba Ambedkar would not have ignored the famous statement made by portia in "Merchant of Venice" by Shakespeare that 'Justice should be tempered with mercy,' particularly when the students are in the position of those about whom -- Jesus Christ said -- "They know not what they do. Forgive them." On this understanding of the matter, we are of the view that expulsion from the college would be a disproportionate punishment not commensurate with the charges against them. On the other hand, if they are debarred from the college for few years and allowed to rejoin the college thereafter, with passage of time heal all the hurt sentiments. With the passage of time the atmosphere in the college would also change and the other students too may accept them with their hurt sentiments assuaged. In the instant case the punishment imposed is thus strikingly disproportionate as to call for and justify interference in our hands. We cannot allow such punishment to remain, uncorrected in exercise of our powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
19. We will now have to consider the question whether this Court should simply set aside that part of the order which imposed punishment and remit the matter to the respondent-Principal for reconsideration as to what appropriate punishment should be imposed. The Supreme Court in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha, while explaining the scope of Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India held that in a given case it is open to the High Court to do what the original Tribunal could do. In the normal circumstances, we would have remitted the case to the Principal concerned for imposition an appropriate punishment, but in the extraordinary situation in which he is placed with political overtones and the sentiments involved, it would be appropriate for us to decide rather than remit the matter to the concerned Principal. Therefore, we consider this as an extraordinary case in which we should exercise the powers which could have been exercised by the original Tribunal or Authority. Having given our anxious consideration, we think that a punishment of expulsion from the college for a period of three years from the date of the order made by the Principal would be appropriate. On the expiry of such period, the students shall be readmitted to the college and they may be allowed to continue their studies, if they are willing to do so and the students shall approach within period of one month before the expiry of the said three years to express their willingness to continue their studies in which event they shall be admitted and allowed to prosecute their studies. The students shall also appropriately assure the Principal at the time of admission that they will not give cause for such incidents hereafter which had made the Principal to impose the punishment of expulsion impugned in these proceedings.
20. Appeals are thus partly allowed to the extent indicated above by modifying the orders of the learned single Judge and the Principal of the College as to the imposition of punishment.
21. Appeals partly allowed.