Himachal Pradesh High Court
Dr. Bhupesh Gupta And Dr. Ashwani Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. on 16 August, 1989
Equivalent citations: AIR1990HP56
ORDER Bhawani Singh, J.
1. These petitions, by the petitioners, arise out of the same incident/Although the extent of punishment varies marginally, however, the substance of the case remains unchanged. Therefore, both these petitions are being taken up together for decision by a common judgment.
2. The facts are that Dr. V. P. Lakhanpal, Professor and Head, Department of Orthopaedics, Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, made a written complaint on 28-10-1988 alleging that on the night of 26-10-1988 certain students, namely, Dr. Kapila and Dr. Bhupesh Gupta (both internees), Mr. Naroo and Mr. Narinder Singh Gill (students) of the college came to his place in doctors' residence in Corestorphen Estate at about 10.30 p.m. and abused him. Further, it was complained that Dr. Bhupesh Gupta also threatened him with physical violence and he was joined by Dr. Kapila in showering abuses and to mention the language of the abuses would be to cross the limits of human decency. In this complaint to the Principal of the College, a request to take suitable action against these persons and to grant him permission to lodge a report with the Police for initiating a defamation case in a Court of law has also been made.
3. In order to take a decision on the complaint, a meeting of the Disciplinary Committee consisting of the Director-cum-Principal and seven other Professors of various other departments in the college was called on 6-12-1988. Before this Committee actually deliberated on 6-12-1988, the four delinquents were asked on 3-12-1988 to present themselves before that Committee at 11.30 a.m. They all presented themselves before the Committee where their explanation relating to this incident was sought. The Committee reached the decision to suspend the petitioners Dr. Bhupesh Gupta and Dr. Ashwani Kumar for a period of one month and three months respectively from the internship training which the petitioners were undergoing at that time and issued suspension order on 17-12-1988.
4. The petitioners have moved these petitions against this action and assail their suspension by respondent No. 3 (hereinafter 'the respondent') and say that on the night of 26-10-1988 at about 10.30 p.m. some unknown persons or students allegedly gave abuses to Dr. Lakhanpal, Head Department of Orthopaedics at his residence. A complaint of this incident was made to the respondent and in this complaint the petitioners have been named along with other two students. The petitioners were called before the Committee convened by the respondent and were told that disciplinary action was sought to be taken against them. The grievance of the petitioners is that their pleas that they never abused Dr. Lakhanpal since there was no reason for doing so and they did not know each other, were not considered by the Committee. It is contended that they were named falsely at the behest of someone else. So, in these circumstances, they allege that they have been punished simply on the basis of assertion of Dr. Lakhanpal that they had been recognised by him. In these circumstances, it is alleged that the decision of the Disciplinary Committee is wrong, arbitrary, based on hear-say evidence and against the provisions of Ordinance 22.17 of the First Ordinance of Himachal Pradesh University which required affording of an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard in person and explain their conduct in writing. The action, they allege, is also against the principles of natural justice. Finally, it has been stated that the effect of the decision of the Committee is that besides financial loss a permanent stigma on their career has been caused in addition to the deprivation of seat in the house job since the same depends upon the completion of internship which, in this case, may be delayed due to the impugned suspension order.
5. Return to this case has been filed by the respondent. It has been averred that the delinquents were summoned to appear before the Disciplinary Committee on 6-12-1988 and they were heard fully and with patience. When asked to explain their conduct regarding this incident, the petitioners admitted before the Committee that they were under the influence of liquor on the night on 26-10-1988 although they denied having abused Dr. Lakhanpal. Ultimately, the Committee reached the unanimous decision to suspend the petitioners after listening to their versions and after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were under the influence of liquor provocating them for the misbehaviour in the manner alleged. Under Ordinance 22.17, the requirement of seeking explanation in writing and hearing the delinquent in person arises only in cases of rustication or expulsion of a student and not in any other case mentioned under this provision. In this case, it is contended, the petitioners were given opportunity by calling their explanation by presenting themselves before the Committee appointed for the purpose. With regard to other averments of the petitioners, it is stated that the financial loss and academic toss to them was due to their own fault and not because of the fault of the respondent. However, it has been reiterated that the petitioners were given full opportunity to explain their conduct in person before the Disciplinary Committee constituted by the respondent for this purpose. In para 7 of the reply (C.W.P. No. 681 of 1988) it has been stated that the petitioner was also involved in a scuffle with newly elected members and other students of the Central Students' Association on 7-12-1987 and the matter was got settled after giving a hearing to all the students involved in the same. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner that he possessed unimpeachable character was not correct.
6. The petitioners have filed rejoinders to the reply of the respondent and it has been averred that the complainant has not been consistent with the version given before the Disciplinary Committee on 6-12-1988 because in the complaint, the names of Jagjit Singh Narro and Narinder Singh Gill were shown along with the petitioners at the time of the incident. However, they have been left out subsequently. It has also been stated that the complaint had been filed after two days of the incident which clearly showed that Dr. Lakhanpat did not know the actual culprits and in the intervening period the names of the petitioners were given by some one inimical to them, more so in the ease of petitioner (C.W.P. 681 of 1988). The name was given since the petitioner had been a prominent student in the College having occupied the seat of Joint Secretary of the Students' Council. In case Dr. Lakhanpal had personal knowledge about them, the complaint should have been lodged the next day of the incident. It was delayed due to the reason that Dr. Lakhanpal had been making his own enquiry into the matter and it was during this time that the names of the petitioners were given to him by some one. They have denied that they were under the influence of liquor on the night of October 26, 1988 and their admission recorded by the Disciplinary Committee in its proceedings was perversity of truth.
7. The respondent has filed surrejoinder to the rejoinder of the petitioners and it has been stated that the delay in complaining the matter was due to the multifareous duties being discharged by Dr. Lakhanpal since he is head of department of a Clinical faculty. He had to be busy in the Out Patient Department on 27-10-1988. So, he could not find time to bring the complaint to the notice of the college authorities. The fact that the petitioners were not under the influence of liquor has also been denied and it has also been denied that the petitioners were not afforded opportunity to explain their conduct. In addition to this, it is stated that since the time of the admission of the petitioner (C.W.P. No. 681 of 1988); his behaviour and conduct is well known to the teachers who are ultimately the members of the Disciplinary Committee. It is also stated that the selection of the petitioners for house job depends on selection by the Selection Committee where factors such as interview and other criteria laid down by the Selection Committee have to be followed.
8. As a sequel to the direction of this Court, the petitioners tendered unqualified apology and the college authorities were desired, through the learned Deputy Advocate General appearing in this case, to look into the matter. Thus, the matter appeared before the Disciplinary Committee again on 16-3-1989 and after considering the apologies tendered by the petitioners, it came to the unanimous conclusion, after due deliberations, taking stock of the activities of the petitioners in the past as well as the present act of misconduct, that there was no justification for setting aside the penalty imposed. The Committee members were of the opinion that a student of the College is expected to show due respect towards the teachers and give no room for any complaint of this nature and by this reprehensible act, the prestige of the Institution and the status of the senior faculty members of the Institution had been eroded. These deliberations of the Committee dated 16-3-1989 concluded finally in deliberations dated 18-3-1989.
9. The principal submission of the petitioners pertains to the application of Ordinance 22.17 and in the light of this provision, it is submitted that the Discriplinary Committee should have given an opportunity to the petitioners to be heard in person and to explain their conduct in writing. It is, at this stage, relevant to quote, in extenso, this provision:--
"22.17. The Dean of studies in the case of the University Department of Studies, and the Head of a college or institution affiliated to or maintained by the University shall have the power to:--
(i) withdraw any fee or other concession from,
(ii) inflict a fine not exceeding Rs. 100 on,
(iii) suspend from attending classes,
(iv) rusticate, or
(v) expel a student, according to the nature and gravity of the breach of discipline committed by him.
Provided that an order of rustication or expulsion shall not be passed, unless the student has been given an opportunity to be heard in person and to explain his conduct in writing,"
10. A bare perusal of this provision indicates in unmistakable terms that the punishments mentioned therein are varying according to the seriousness of the misconduct involved. However, the proviso to the Ordinance specifically provides that an opportunity to be heard in person and to explain the conduct in writing is confined to cases of rustication or expulsion of a student by the Dean of Studies in case of the University department of studies and the Head of a College or Institution affiliated or maintained by the University. Thus, it can be said that the cases of the petitioners do not pertain to the category of rustication or expulsion. Rustication and expulsion are punishments of serious nature and entail the dislocation of the Students from the University or institution for a particular period and in such a case provisions like Ordinances 22.18, 22.19, 22.20, 22.21 and 22.22 are to be resorted to and complied with. On the other hand punishments other than these are of minor nature and in the present case the effect of the punishment is cessation of the student from attending the classes for a particular period, say, as in this case, one month and three months respectively. In the light of the discussion aforesaid, it can, therefore, be said that the petitioners were not entitled to an opportunity to be heard in person and to explain their conduct in writing. There is no other provision which comes in aid of the petitioners nor anyone was brought to my notice by the petitioners. However, looking to the present case, the Disciplinary Committee has specifically given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in person to explain their conduct. According to the affidavit of the respondent, they were heard by the Committee with patience and full opportunity was given to them at that stage and they explained their cases before the Disciplinary Committee. It was after hearing the petitioners that the Committee came to the conclusion that punishment of suspension to the extent aforesaid be awarded to them. The method adopted by the Disciplinary Committee is quite fair, reasonable, just and in tune with the principles of natural justice although hearing the petitioners in person was not necessary under Ordinance 22.17. The petitioners have not complained that the Disciplinary Committee or its members had any bias against them or it was not acting in good faith. The only thing they assert is that their pleas were not taken into consideration and that they had not admitted the factum of being under the influence of liquor and that the complainant named them at the instance of some-one-else nimical to them. This assertion is thoroughly incredible and an afterthought. Professor Lakhanpal does not appear to have brought the matter to the notice of the Principal recklessly. He took time, it appears, to know and ascertain the names of the students who were involved in the incident. Besides, he was discharging his own duties in the Department. In ascertaining the names, as he did, there is nothing wrong; rather it indicates circumspection expected of a teacher of the level of a Professor and Head of the department, to ponder, ascertain and decide the matter after cool thinking. He had recognised the petitioners and others during the committee proceedings and had he any bias against those four students, nothing prevented him from including Jagjit Singh Naroo and Narinder Singh Gill qua whom he specifically stated that he was not abused by them. He was present in the Committee. The petitioners could have put him certain questions in case their identification by him was wrong but they did not do such a thing.
11. Sh. L. S. Panta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh, submits that indiscipline in educational institutions is mounting enormously making it difficult for the heads of the institutions to control such occurrence, more so, when students are involved. Elaborating his submission, he submits that the jurisdiction of this Court while dealing such matters under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India relating to educational institutions and indiscipline therein is minimal and confined to cases:
(a) where there is no evidence to support the order;
(b) where enquiry has not been fair;
(c) where the body dealing with the matter is actuated by bias.
12. In these circumstances, the learned Deputy Advocate General contends that in view of Ordinance 22.17, the petitioners were not entitled to any opportunity to be heard in person and to explain their conduct in writing still they have been given not one but two opportunities. They appeared in person and explained their conduct at the Medical College and they were not entitled to any other and further hearing in the matter and all their submissions to the contrary are just an afterthought.
13. In my opinion the submissions raised by the learned Deputy Advocate General have substance. It has already been held that Ordinance 22.17 excluded giving of opportunity to the petitioners and in these circumstances at the most the petitioners were entitled for an opportunity to explain their conduct. That has been duly made available to them by the Disciplinary Committee. They had every chance to represent their cause and they did it. This procedure evolved by the Disciplinary Committee is quite apt, just, reasonable and in tune with the spirit of the principles of natural justice. The challenge of the petitioners to the decision of the Disciplinary Committee on merits is without any substance in view of the aforesaid discussion. Moreover, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question. Its jurisdiction is limited to see whether the procedure adopted by the Disciplinary, Committee was fair and just complying thereby with the mechanics of procedural fairness.
14. The law relating to the mechanics of principles of natural justice has developed to great extent. Almost every third and fourth case in the law journals deals with the application of these principles. However, judicial pronouncements say that these principles are not cut and dried formulae to be applied uniformally to each and every case that comes before a court of law. Whether or not they apply and if so to what extent and in what form, it is the facts and circumstances of each case which govern application of these principles.
15. In AIR 1970 SC 679, State of U.P. v. Om Parkash Gupta, the Court discussed these principles of natural justice and said (para 10):
"..........But those principles are not embodied principles. What principles of natural justice should be applied in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances of that case. All that the Courts have to see is whether the non-observance of any of those principles in a given case is likely to have resulted in deflecting the course of justice......"
Further in AIR 1973 SC 1260 Hira Nath Mishra v. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi, the Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision and said (para 7):--
"............This Court has pointed out in Union of India v. P. K. Roy,(I968)2SCR 186 at page 202 : (AIR 1968 SC 850 at p. 858 that the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned with in the strait jacket of a rigid formula and its application depends upon several factors. In the present case the complaint made to the Principal related to an extremely serious matter as it involved not merely internal discipline but the safety of the girl students living in the Hostel under the guardianship of the college authorities. These authorities were in loco parent is to all the students male and female who were living in the Hostels and the responsibility towards the young girl students was greater because their guardians had entrusted them to their care by putting them in the Hostels attached to the College. The authorities could not possibly dismiss the matter as of small consequence because if they did, they would have encouraged the male student rowdies to increase their questionable activities which would, not only, have brought a bad name to the college but would have compelled the parents of the girl students to withdraw them from the Hostel and, perhaps, even stop their further education. The Principal was, therefore, under an obligation to make a suitable enquiry and punish the miscreants."
In Russel v. Duke of Norfolk, (1949) I All ER 109 at page 118 Tucker, LJ observed :
"There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind of inquiry and every kind of domestic tribunal. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject matter that is being dealt with, and so forth. Accordingly, I do not derive much assistance from the definitions of natural justice which have been used from time to time, but, whatever standard is adopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case."
In Byrne v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd., (1958) 2 All ER 579 Harman, J. observed:
"What, then, are the requirements of natural justice in a case of this kind? First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made; secondly that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thirdly, of course, that the tribunal should act in good faith. I do not think that there is really anything more."
16. Sh. L. S. Panta refers to the decision of the Kerala High Court reported in AIR 1979 Kerala 150, The Principal, Govt. Engineering College, Trichur v. John K. Kurien. While dealing with the cases of suspension of certain student's for ragging in the college, the learned Judges of the court observed that in academic disciplinary proceedings, the principles of natural justice should not be applied with a strict standard, provided the proceedings are substantially fair.
17. In AIR 1982 Madras 79, Bright Son Jose v. Madurai Kamaraj University, the High Court of Madras while dealing with the procedure adopted by the domestic tribunal in a case Of unfair means by a student at an examination and the grievance of the student in not examining the invigilator in the enquiry thus violating the principles of natural justice, the learned Judges observed (at p. 80):--
"............It is significant to note that at the time of enquiry, the appellant had not stated that the invigilator should be examined in his presence. The Syndicate, in fair and impartial manner, considered the charge against the appellant and his explanation, and made the recommendation to the Controller of examination, on the basis of which the impugned order was passed. Natural justice is often equated with 'fair play in action'. In considering the question of violation of principles of natural Justice, all that we have to see is whether the Syndicate has acted in a fair manner while recommending imposition of penalty by way of domestic discipline on the appellant. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we are convinced that the Syndicate has acted in a fair manner and the basic requirements of the principles of natural justice have been complied with. A rigid and mechanical insistence of a full-fledged enquiry of examination and cross-examination of witness in matters relating to internal discipline of educational institutions under the guise of observing the principles of natural justice may not be conducive for the effective functioning and preservation of the structure of our educational institutions........"
18. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in any of these submissions of the petitioners and the same are rejected.
19. The last submission raised by the petitioners pertains to the consequences of the impugned order on their career. This challenge is equally merit less. When compared to the nature of the misconduct committed by the petitioners. It is rather painful as well as alarming that standards of etiquette and behaviour of students have decayed to such an extent that they misbehave even with teachers who are builders of the nation, students and the Institution. In these circumstances, it cannot, therefore, be believed that Professor Lakhanpal had any animus to involve the petitioners in this incident at the instance of someone else. Nor can it be said that there was no lack of bad faith on the part of the members of the Disciplinary Committee and, therefore, it did not take into account any pleas raised by the petitioners while appearing before it. As already observed, such submissions being made have no basis and it cannot be possibly held that the Disciplinary Committee added something in its proceedings which did not happen. Equally untenable is the plea that the factum of the petitioners being under the influence of liquor has been wrongly stated to have been admitted. The record placed at the disposal of this Court by the learned Deputy Advocate General has been perused and it can be said that the conclusions arrived at by the Disciplinary Committee are not in any way erroneous or based on no evidence. It has, in fact, looked to all the aspects of the conduct of the petitioners at the Medical College before coming to the conclusion in the matter. Looking to the seriousness of the allegations, the punishment awarded appears to be rather minimal.
20. No other point was argued by any of the parties to the case.
21. The result of the aforesaid examination of the matter is that there is no merit in these petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.