Punjab-Haryana High Court
Date Of Decision:07.11.2013 vs Rajiv Gandhi National University Of Law ... on 7 November, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Kumar Vinod
2013.11.14 10:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP No.22924 of 2012 [1]
*****
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.22924 of 2012
Date of decision:07.11.2013
Sharad Kharra and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law and others ...Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Arjun Partap Atma Ram, and
Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate,
for respondent nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate,
for respondent no.3.
Ms. Madhu Sehgal, Advocate, for
Mr. Sheerish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent no.4.
*****
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
Both the petitioners are the students of Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as the "University"). Petitioner no.1 is the student of 9th Semester and petitioner no.2 of 3rd Semester of the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Five Years Integrated Course. They were suspended from attending classes by the Registrar of the University on 28.08.2012 for indulging in the indecent act in the University campus on 27.08.2012, which was viewed as a great indiscipline. Ultimately, vide order dated 07.11.2012, both the petitioners have been rusticated for the Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [2] ***** alleged act dated 27.08.2012, which has now been challenged by way of this writ petition.
At the initial stage of the writ petition, an effort was made to explore the possibility of their migration to some other institution and accordingly, on the oral request of the counsel for the petitioners, Panjab University, Chandigarh, and the Punjabi University, Patiala, were impleaded as respondent nos.3 and 4. However, in the reply filed by the Panjab University, while referring to the rules for migration to the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Five Years Integrated Course, it was alleged that no migration is permitted in 9th Semester. Though there is no reply of Punjabi University on record but perhaps the same stand was taken by its counsel, therefore, counsel for the petitioners desired that he would contest the case on merits. Therefore, reply on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2 was filed.
Before I deal with the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, it is worthwhile to mention here that the allegation against the petitioners is that they were found in objectionable position on the first floor of the Administrative Block of Mohindra Kothi Campus of the University on 27.08.2012 around 6:30 p.m. They stayed there at the secluded place without any reason or authority for more than 3 hours before being spotted and called by the Security Officer of the University. Petitioner no.1 was not wearing any shirt, whereas petitioner no.2 was wearing T-shirt belonging to the petitioner no.1. Photographs produced on record in the reply shows that they were in objectionable posture in the public view on the terrace of the Administrative Block of the University. Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [3]
***** Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is a complete violation of Section 33(2) of the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), because the rustication can be ordered by the Executive Council on the report of the Vice Chancellor and before passing such an order, the Executive Council is required to give an opportunity of hearing. Section 33 of the Act is reproduced as under:-
"33. DISCIPLINE:
(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the final authority for the maintenance of discipline among the students of the University. His directions in this behalf shall be carried out by the Heads of Department, hostels and institutions.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the punishment of debarring a student from an examination or rustication from the University from an examination or rustication from the University or a hostel or an institution shall, on the report of the Vice-
Chancellor, be considered and imposed by the Executive Council:
Provided that no such punishment shall be imposed without giving the student concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard against the action proposed to be taken against him."
It is further submitted that in any case, the petitioners cannot be debarred for life to complete their studies as rustication cannot be ordered for more than one year, which has also been recommended by the Inquiry Committee constituted by the University. It is further submitted that even Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [4] ***** the inquiry has not been properly conducted because the witnesses were not examined in the presence of the petitioners and there is a lack of corroboration in their statements.
In support of his contentions, counsel for the petitioners has referred to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of B.P.Puttaraju and others v. The Bangalore University and another, AIR 1980 KARNATAKA 39(1), a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Biswajit Saha and others v. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar National Institute of technology (Deemed University) and others, 2007(4) S.C.T. 368 and a Single Bench judgment of this court in the case of Devinder Pal Singh Sandhu v. Shri K.L.Kapur, D.M.College, Moga and another, 1966 AIR (Punjab) 91.
Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners were suspended from attending their classes in terms of Clause 21 of the University Statute. For ready reference, Clause 21 is reproduced as under:-
"21. Discipline:
(1) The Vice-Chancellor may constitute a Fact Finding Committee to inquire into the incident of indiscipline, if any, by the students;
(2) The Committee shall report the matter to the Vice-
Chancellor for confirmation of its findings.
(3) The Vice-Chancellor may also require the Committee to suggest punishment or any other disciplinary action against a student, if found guilty. Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [5]
***** (4) The Vice-Chancellor may award the appropriate punishment except for the punishment provided under Section 33(2) of the RGNUL Act.
Provided that Vice_Chancellor may suspend a student from classes and hostel pending enquiry against him/her."
The Inquiry Committee was constituted on 05.09.2012 to enquire into the incident on the following terms of reference:-
"1. To find whether there is fault/culpability on the part of the students involved in the incidence and the extent thereof. The concerned students/their parents be given an opportunity of hearing before giving finding. If, found guilty, to propose the punishment for each of them."
The Inquiry Committee was constituted comprising of Prof. Anirudh Prasad as Convenor, Dr. Anand Pawar and Dr. Jasleen Dewlani as Members. In the inquiry, both oral as well as documentary evidence were recorded and the inquiry report, thereafter, was placed before the Executive Council in its meeting held on 04.10.2012 in which the following resolution was passed:-
"Keeping in view the gravity of the incident and thoughtful consideration the members of the Executive Council unanimously resolved that the Vice-Chancellor may call the boy and girl student involved in the Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [6] ***** indecent incident case along with their parents and they may be given an option to withdraw their admission from RFNUL. If they so desire transfer/migration certificate be issued to them so that they may take admission at other institutions. In the alternative, the order for rustication be passed against these two students, namely, Mr. Sharad Kharra student of B.A.LL.B. IV year Roll No.333 and Ms. Juhi Kothari student of B.A.LL.B. II year Roll No.717."
It is further submitted that in pursuance of the decision of the Executive Council, both the students along with their parents/guardian were called by the Vice-Chancellor. Shri Rajendra Kharra, father of Sharad Kharra met the Vice-Chancellor in his office on 12.10.2012 and Sharad Kharra met the Vice-Chancellor on 12.10.2012. Mr. Bhoor Chand Kothari, grandfather of Ms. Juhi Kothari met the Vice-Chancellor in his office on 12.10.2012 and Ms. Juhi spoke to the Vice-Chancellor on mobile on 12.10.2012 in the presence of her grandfather. The Vice-Chancellor informed and explained to them the decision of the Executive Council individually but both the students and their parents/guardians did not give any option for withdrawal of their candidature from the University. It is further submitted that the case was again placed before the Executive Council for consideration of awarding alternative punishment of rustication in its meeting held on 01.11.2012, in which a decision was taken to rusticate them and accordingly, after following due procedure, both the petitioners Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [7] ***** have been rusticated. In support of his contention, he has relied upon various decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others v. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 59, Hira Nath Mishra and others v. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and another, (1973) 1 Supreme Court Cases 805 and Haryana Financial Corporation and another v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja, (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 31.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute that as per Clause 21 of the University Statute, the Vice Chancellor can constitute a Fact Finding Committee to inquire into any incident of indiscipline by the students. The Committee is to report the matter to the Vice Chancellor for confirmation of its finding, who may also require the Committee to suggest punishment or any other disciplinary action against a student if he is found guilty. The Vice- Chancellor may award the appropriate punishment except for the punishment provided under Section 33(2) of the Act and it is also provided that the Vice-Chancellor may suspend a student from classes and hostel pending enquiry against him/her. It is also not disputed that for the unpleasant incident took place on 27.08.2012 in the University campus, Inquiry Committee was constituted on 05.09.2012 comprising 3 members who, not only recorded the statement of the various witnesses but also took into consideration documentary evidence and made its recommendations Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [8] ***** that the ends of justice will be served if Sharad Kharra son of Rajendra Kharra, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Fifth Year be expelled for one academic year i.e. 2012-2013 from Classes in the academic block and hostel of RGNUL campus Sidhuwal and be imposed a fine of `5000/- and Ms. Juhi Kothari D/o Mr. Babulal Kothari, B.A.LL.B. (Hons) Second year be expelled for one academic year i.e. 2012-2013 from Classes in the academic block and hostel of RGNUL Campus, Sidhuwal and be imposed a fine of `5000/-. The inquiry report was placed before the Executive Council on 04.10.2012 who, while considering gravity of the incident, resolved that both the petitioners who were involved in the said incident be called along with their parents/guardians and be given an option to withdraw their admission from the University. If they so desire transfer, migration certificate be issued to them so that they may take admission in other institutions. In the alternative, the order of rustication be passed against them. It is not disputed that in terms of the order of the Executive Council, both the petitioners along with their parents/guardian were called by the Vice Chancellor but they did not opt for the first option of withdrawal of their admission. They were also given an opportunity of hearing on the question of rustication and the matter was placed before the Executive Council again on 01.11.2012 to rusticate both the petitioners.
As I have said earlier that there was a move to migrate the petitioner to some other colleges and for that purpose, Panjab University, Chandigarh, and the Punjabi University, Patiala, were also impleaded as parties but they showed their helplessness in the matter of migration because Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [9] ***** of the provisions of law governing their institutions. Thus, the question raised by the counsel for the petitioners is as to "what should be the duration of the order of rustication".
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Section 33(2) of the Act though provides for rustication but there is no period prescribed for rustication. In this regard, he has referred to the decision in B.P.Puttaraju and others' case (supra), in which it has been held as under:-
"9. This argument is founded on the meaning of the word `rustication'. This word is not defined in the Act or in the statutes framed under the Act by the University. In the result this court has to lean back on the ordinary dictionary meaning of that term. Both the Oxford Dictionary and Webster's Third International Dictionary have given the meaning of the word `rusticate' to mean expulsion for a specified temporary period. It is well known that the word `rusticate' owes its origin to the word `rustic' or a man from the country. To rusticate means to send the man away to the country. However, the meaning in relation to educational institutions must necessarily be understood as expulsion for a given period of time and no more."
In Devinder Pal Singh Sandhu's case (supra), which deals with Rule 4 of Chapter 57 of the Punjab University Calendar, Volume III (1962 Edition) in which it is provided that "rustication whenever imposed Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [ 10 ] ***** on a college student shall always mean the loss of one academical year or missing of following two University examinations in so far as his appearance at a University examination is concerned. The period of absence from the college will, however, depend upon the time of the year when the penalty is imposed", it was held that the "rustication has to be ordered for one year". In Biswajit Saha and others' case (supra), in which the matter was regarding the education of an under-trial accused, it was held that "even the convicts are permitted to take up their studies, if they are eligible and competent to do so. Programmes are being initiated and chalked out to impart training to convicts in jails".
On the contrary, counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioners have spoiled the atmosphere of the University by their indecent behaviour and it is not possible to retain them any further. However, he has been candid enough to submit that the word "rustication" is not defined in the Act, rather the judgment relied upon by him in Director (Studies), Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering Technology, Chandigarh and others' case (supra) deals with the issue of cheating by the students during examination for which it has been observed that it is necessary to maintain academic discipline and no sympathy or leniency be shown to candidates who resorts to unfair means in the exams.
Haryana Financial Corporation and another's case (supra), deals with the issue of principle of natural justice of supplying copy of the inquiry report and Hira Nath Mishra and others' case (supra) also deals Kumar Vinod 2013.11.14 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.22924 of 2012 [ 11 ] ***** with the principle of natural justice in the administrative law.
The resume of the aforesaid discussion shows that even the Inquiry Committee, to whom the reference was made by the Vice- Chancellor of the University to find out whether there is a fault on the part of the students involved in the indecent incident and the extent thereof and if they are found guilty to propose the punishment for each of them, proposed the action of expulsion of both the students for one academic session. The Executive Council also took a decision that the University should try that both the students should withdraw their admissions and for that purpose they should be given migration/transfer certificates etc. or in the alternative, they should be rusticated. Since rustication is not defined in the Act, therefore, I rely upon the decision in B.P.Puttaraju and others' case (supra) in which it has been held that it cannot be for a period of more than one year. Even otherwise, Rule 4 of Chapter 57 of the Punjab University Calendar, Volume III (1962 Edition) also provides for rustication to mean the loss of one academic year or missing of following two University examinations.
Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances and of course the indiscipline on the part of the petitioners in the University campus, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if both the petitioners should be rusticated for a period of one year.
With these observations, the present writ petition is disposed of.
November 07, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE