Madhya Pradesh High Court
St. Pauls Senior Secondary School Katni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 February, 2024
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23rd OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 26830 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
ST. PAULS SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL KATNI
THROUGH ITS MANAGER FATHER
THANKACHAN JOSE S/O JOSEPH THOMAS AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O ST. PAUL'S SENIOR
SECONDARY SCHOOL CAMPUS CIVIL LINES
KATNI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ANSHUMAN SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. 'A'
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS/STATE BY SHRI NAVEEN DUBEY - GOVERNMENT
2
ADVOCATE)
(RESPONDENT NO.5 BY SHRI KABEER PAUL - ADVOCATE)
"Reserved on : 21.02.2024"
"Pronounced on : 23.02.2024".
This petition having been heard and reserved for judgment, coming on for
pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the District Education Officer in File No.Manyata/2023/7071 by which the petitioner has been directed to readmit respondent No.5 in the school and to inform the District administration as well as the office of District Education Officer, Katni.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is an educational, institution having nearly 3500 students and claims itself to be a premier educational institution in the District of Katni. Since the school is responsible for nurturing the children and for inculcating in them a sense of discipline which will in turn result in the students growing up into responsible citizens of the country, therefore, the petitioner has to maintain discipline in the school. Accordingly, it is claimed that the petitioner institution must have liberty at all times to take necessary steps for the purpose of enforcing and maintaining discipline of the highest order in the institution.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.5 took admission in the institution on 15.6.2023 in class 11th (Commerce). His conduct has been a matter of serious concern as the student has been habitually 3 engaging in activities of breach of discipline. He was found to be bringing and using e-cigarette in the school. Once he was also found to be consuming alcohol in the school. Upon being checked, the student refused to take remedial measures. On 22.07.2023 about three boys and seven girls from the petitioner institution left their house on the pretext of attending the school and abruptly eloped, and instead of coming to school, went for picnic to a waterfall which is situated approximately 25 kms. away from the school. The students remained at the picnic site till late in the evening and alcohol was also consumed. Parents of some of the girls reported the matter to the management of the school and requested for stern action. On 27.7.2023 a Disciplinary Committee was constituted by the School who, after recording the statements of the witnesses, submitted its report that the students did not come to school and instead of that they went for picnic to a spot which is approximately 25 Kms. away from the school and after the school hours were over, they went back to their houses directly. It was also mentioned in the report that 2 students, namely, the respondent No.5 and one girl who have recently come in the school, were engaged in multiple indisciplined activities and other students have also made complaints about their inappropriate behavior in the class and accordingly, it was recommended that respondent No.5 and another girl should not be given admission in the school and rest of the students of the group should be given a pink card as a strict warning, since none of them were ever involved in any indisciplined activities in the past. It is further submitted that parents of two students including respondent no.5 were called in the School and they were requested to take T.C. 4 and withdraw their children from the school rather than the school taking any action on disciplinary ground. Further, an offer was also made by the School to return the entire fee. This soft approach was adopted by the petitioner in order to avoid any blot on the career of the students. It is submitted that instead of following the advice, father of the respondent no.5 submitted a complaint dated 8.8.2023 to the respondent no.2 alleging that the school was victimizing the children. Upon the complaint, the respondent no.3 issued notice dated 12.8.2023 to the petitioner Institution calling for an explanation. Since the petitioner Institution did not want to get into confrontation which would result in affecting the future of the children, therefore, instead of placing a long explanation on record, the Principal and Manager of the petitioner Institution met the authorities and explained the situation. It is alleged that when written explanation was insisted upon, a reply dated 14.8.2023 was submitted narrating the entire incident and pointing out as to why request had been made to the parents to withdraw their children. Another reply dated 19.8.2023 was submitted to the respondent No.3. It is further submitted that the girl student has subsequently been taken back into the School as she was not found actively involved in the entire incident.
4. The respondent No.4 issued another notice dated 28.08.2023 asking for a detailed reply / explanation on the complaints made by father of the respondent No.5. The petitioner submitted its reply to the said notice on 29.8.2023 with all related documents. An Enquiry Committee was constituted by the respondent No.2 consisting of respondent No.4 and two other persons. The Enquiry Committee issued a notice dated 5 6.9.2023 to the petitioner, which was replied with all related documents on 8.9.2023. However, no copy of the enquiry report was ever supplied to the petitioner and a letter dated 14.9.2023 was also written by the Chairman of the Child Welfare Commission to the administration and based on the report of Enquiry Committee and the letter, the impugned communication dated 14.9.2023 has been issued by the respondent No.3, thereby directing the petitioner to take back both the students, i.e. respondent No.5 and another girl. It is once again pointed out that the girl whose parents were also advised to take TC has already been readmitted in the School, therefore, the entire controversy revolves around the respondent No.5.
5. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the conduct of respondent No.5 was not good in the school. There were complaints that he is in the habit of consuming e-cigarette in the boys lavatory. Even a complaint was made that he had consumed liquor in the classroom and the manner of walking of respondent No.5 during the Inter house Kho Kho competition alarmed the teachers to verify and it was informed by the batchmates of the respondent No.5 that he has consumed liquor. Even some of the teachers have given a complaint in writing that behavior of the respondent No.5 towards them is not proper. Accordingly, it is submitted that two different decisions were taken, i.e. remaining students who had gone to the waterfall, were allowed to continue in the school after stern warning whereas looking to the past behavior of the respondent No.5 his parents have been advised to take TC with entire fee, without any allegations so that the career of the respondent No.5 may not come under jeopardy.
66. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon certain applications which were made by the teachers of the petitioner in the form of complaints, along with their rejoinder.
7. The respondent No.5 has denied all the allegations. So far as complaints made by the teachers to the management of the petitioner Institution is concerned, it was specifically submitted that those complaints are concocted and afterthought.
8. Challenging the order passed by the District Education Officer, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that C.W.C. had no authority whatsoever to issue any instructions to the school, because neither the respondent No.5 was a child in need for care and protection, nor the C.W.C. has any authority to interfere in such matters in the light of jurisdiction defined under section 37 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 2015. It is further submitted that the entire effort of the petitioner was to resolve the dispute without getting involved in mud-sledging and the petitioner was also not interested in placing the complaints made by the teachers against the respondent No.5 on record; but the return, which has been filed by the respondent No.5, has made it compulsory for the petitioner to make such complaints public, so that the truth may come to light.
9. It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that the Madras High Court in the case of V.S.Babaramesh Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and others, reported in (2015) SCC Online Mad 5726 has held that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable and the allegations can be proved by preponderance of probability.
710. The Division Bench by order dated 17.10.2016 in the case of Prashant Dixit Vs. Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi and others in Writ Petition No.2040/2015 has held that discipline is one of the key ingredients that a student has to learn while undertaking education in a school. It is the most important and foremost duty and obligation of an academic institution or school to inculcate, enforce and teach discipline to the students studying in it. The Division Bench, after verifying the correctness of the allegations, had upheld the decision of the school to rusticate the student from the school.
11. The counsel for petitioner has also relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Priya Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others, reported in 2017(2) MPLJ 404.
12. Per contra, the counsel for respondent no.5 submitted that the petitioner is duly covered by the definition of Child in Need for Care and Protection as given in section 2(14) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. It is further submitted that as per sections 30 and 37 of JJA Act, 2015, the C.W.C. has every right to interfere in the matter.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
14. The dispute between the parties can be summarized as under :-
i) The respondent no.5 was given admission in the school on
15.06.2023 in Class 11th (Commerce). It is alleged by counsel for the petitioner that the misbehavior of the respondent no.5 in school hours during inter-house Kho-Kho match was reported by the PTI to the Principal of the petitioner/School. It is also 8 mentioned in the said complaint that PTI was informed by the classmates that respondent No.5 had brought alcohol in a steel bottle in the school and he took it. It was also mentioned by the class teacher of the respondent No.5 that respondent No.5 brought vape to the school and consumed it in the Boys Washroom during recess and the students, who had gone to Vasuda Fall informed that he had also carried vape along with him.
ii) Another complaint was made by the class teacher of the respondent No.5 that the respondent no.5 is in habit of coming late to the school. He is in habit of disturbing the class and giving back answers to the teachers. He is very arrogant and is in habit of insulting others. Once he had told a girl that in case if she is not feeling well, then she can sit on his lap so that he can feed her with his hands. This incident was informed to the English HOD, who had a counseling, but there is no change in the behavior of respondent no.5. It is submitted that even the teachers had made a complaint to the petitioner that the conduct of respondent no.5 is humiliating and demoralizing them as he is in habit of imitating, back answering and misbehaving in the class.
iii) Similarly, it is submitted that on 15th July, 2023 a complaint was made by the teachers about his unusual conduct during the inter- house Kho Kho match as well as information given by his batch- mates that he had consumed liquor, which he had brought in a steel bottle.
915. Since the respondent no.5 has denied these documents by alleging that these are concocted and afterthought documents, therefore, it is necessary for this Court to adjudicate as to whether the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondent no.5 are correct or not?
16. It is made clear that these findings are confined to this petition only because these findings are being recorded without recording evidence and it would be purely on the basis of documents and the findings recorded by this Court shall not be used by any of the parties in any proceeding, except in case, if any appeal is filed against this order.
17. According to the petitioner, a Disciplinary Committee was constituted only after a complaint was made by mother of one of the girl who had gone to the waterfall, along with 10 other students, including the respondent No.5. The report submitted by the Committee has been placed on record as annexure P-2. In the entire report, there is no mention of consumption of vape or liquor in the school premises. It is not out of place to mention here that the incident of going to the waterfall took place on 22.7.2023 and that is the last allegation of misbehavior / indiscipline, which has been alleged against the respondent No.5. So far as the factum of consumption of liquor and vape by respondent No.5 in the school, as made by the petitioner are concerned, they were of prior in time. If the written complaints were already made to the petitioner with regard to consumption of vape and liquor in the school premises, then why the said aspect does not find place in the enquiry report ? Counsel for the petitioner could not 10 explain, except by saying that the petitioner did not want to malign the image of respondent No.5, and had taken the matter in the soft manner so that the career of the respondent No.5 may not come under any cloud. However, the said submission made by counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable for the reason that counsel for the petitioner has relied on certain complaints made by the teachers in writing to the petitioner. Those complaints have been placed on record as annexures P/11, P/12, P/13 and P/14 along with rejoinder. One complaint is dated 15.7.2023 in which there is a specific allegation of abnormal behavior of the respondent No.5 in the school premises on 12.7.2023. It is not out of place to mention here that this complaint was made on 15.7.2023. As per this complaint, when the unusual behavior of respondent No.5 was noticed, and the manner in which he had greeted the teachers in an unfamiliar manner, then his batch-mates informed the petitioner that his unusual behavior was on account of consumption of alcohol as he had brought the same in the school premises and had also offered to some of the students/ participants, suggesting that it would provide warmth to play in the rainy season. According to this complaint, respondent No.5 had brought rum.
18. Bringing alcohol in a school premises and consumption of the same is a serious matter and it was always expected from the school administration that they should have taken up this issue with the parents of the respondent No.5. But, it is not the case of the petitioner that parents of the respondent No.5 were ever informed about this behavior of consumption of alcohol by respondent No.5 in the school premises. Even counsel for the petitioner could not point out as to why 11 parents of the respondent No.5 were not informed about the act of respondent No.5 of bringing and consuming vape in the school premises.
19. Another complaint, annexure P/11 is an undated complaint. It also speaks about misbehavior of the respondent No.5 during the Inter House Kho Kho match. In this complaint, even the date on which Inter House Kho Kho match was organized is not disclosed. Another document has been filed by the petitioner, which says that the petitioner had brought vape and consumed it in the boys lavatory during recess and the students who had gone to Vasudha fall had also informed that he had carried vape along with him. Although this complaint in the form of information is undated but as this complaint also refers to the incident of going to waterfall on 22.7.2023, therefore, it is clear that this complaint must have been made subsequent to 22.7.2023.
20. Another complaint has been filed as annexure P/12. This is with regard to misbehavior of the respondent No.5 in the classroom. Again, this complaint is undated, but there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner ever took up the issue with the parents of the respondent No.5 at any point of time.
21. Another complaint dated 12.8.2023 has been placed on record by the petitioner as annexure P13 in which it is mentioned by the lady teachers that they have been demoralized and humiliated by the behavior of the respondent No.5 while they take classes. It was also alleged that he had been imitating, back answering and misbehaving in 12 the class. This complaint is after the complaint dated 8.8.2023 made by father of the respondent No.5 to the District Collector, as well as incharge Minister. It is true that strict rules of evidence may not apply, but even after applying the principles of preponderance of probability, this Court is unable to convince itself that the complaints made by the teachers, which have been filed along with the rejoinder, were made on the date which is reflected in the same although some of them are undated. None of the complaints bears the acknowledgement of the Principal to show that the said complaints were made to him/ her. Furthermore, there is nothing on record to show that prior to 22.7.2023 any step was taken by the School which may indicate that the complaints were made either on 15.7.2023 or prior thereto. There is no averment in the petition that the parents of the respondent No.5 were ever summoned in the school prior to 22.7.2023 and they were ever informed about the misdeeds of the respondent No.5.
22. As already pointed out, bringing and consumption of liquor as well as consumption of vape in the school premises is a very serious act of indiscipline, which cannot be condoned by any stretch of imagination. Why the school condoned such an act and did not bring it to the notice of his parents has not been explained by the School, except by submitting that the school did not want to malign the image of the respondent No.5.
23. Under these circumstances, it appears that the stand taken by the respondent No.5 that written complaints made by the teachers are concocted and afterthought and they have been obtained by undue 13 influence by enjoying the dominant situation of the Management has some considerable force.
24. For the purpose of guidance, this Court would like to consider section 16 of the Contract Act. Although strictly speaking, it may not apply to the facts of the case. It is clear from sub section (3) of section 16 of the Contract Act that burden is on the person who is in a position to dominate the will. Under these circumstances, this Court is unable to rely upon the written complaints made by the teachers against the respondent No.5, which have been filed as annexures P/11 to P/14 along with the rejoinder. Thus, it is held that the petitioner has failed to prove any previous misconduct of the respondent No.5.
25. The next question for consideration is as to whether the act of going to a waterfall without the knowledge and permission of the teachers, as well as without the knowledge and permission of the School, can be condoned or not ?
26. It is not the case of the petitioner that 11 students, including the respondent No.5 had bunked the class and went to the waterfall without informing and taking permission from the school management. The allegation against the students is that they left their houses on the pretext of going to school and instead of coming to school, they went to a waterfall and where the petitioner also had consumed vape. Except one written application given by the teacher, which was apparently written after 22.7.2023, there is nothing on record that any vape was consumed by the petitioner while he was at the waterfall. If a student instead of coming to School goes to a picnic spot without any 14 permission or knowledge of the teachers as well as parents, then it is a serious issue. However, admittedly, the School has taken two different stands in respect of two sets of students. Initially, the act of indiscipline of 9 students was thought to be pardonable on the ground that there were no previous complaints. Thereafter, the School also agreed to take back the girl. Thus, out of 11 students, 10 students have been continued in school, whereas parents of the respondent No.5 were advised to take the TC.
27. It is further submitted by counsel for the respondent No.5 that because of stay by this Court, the respondent No.5, in order to save his year, has already taken admission in another school but he wants to prosecute his study in the school of the petitioner.
28. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether award of two different punishments to two different sets of students for a similar act of indiscipline can be justified or not ?
29. This court has already come to a conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the act of indiscipline of respondent No.5 on previous occasions. If those allegations are ignored, then there is nothing on record to suggest a different treatment to the respondent No.5 qua the other ten students, who had also gone to the waterfall.
30. So far as submissions made by counsel for the petitioner that C.W.C. has no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter is concerned, this Court does not think it appropriate to consider those submissions because on the basis of material which is available on record, this Court itself has come to a conclusion that there is no sufficient material to treat the 15 respondent no.5 differently from other 10 students for the similar act of indiscipline.
31. Under these circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the D.E.O. did not commit any mistake by directing the petitioner to take the respondent No.5 back in the school.
32. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE HEMANT SARAF 2024.02.26 10:28:10 +05'30' HS