Madras High Court
N.Sivaguru vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 July, 2015
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 10.07.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.(MD) Nos.9323 of 2015
and 4740 to 4742 of 2015
1. N.Sivaguru ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9323/2015
2. B.Saravana Bava ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.4740/2015
3. M.Palanisamy ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.4741/2015
4. S.Thirumani ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.4742/2015
vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
The Director of Legal Studies,
Directorate of Legal Studies,
Purosaivakkam High Road,
Chennai.
2. The Principal
Government Law College,
Trichy. ... Common Respondents
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for
the records connected with the order in Se.Mu.Aa.No.714/A3/2014 dated
06.03.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently
direct the respondents to readmit them in III year B.A., B.L., Degree course
in 2014-2015 academic year in the 2nd respondent college and allow them to
continue their studies.
!For Petitioners : Mrs.M.Manimegalai
(in W.P.(MD) No.9323/2015)
Mr.R.Alagumani
(in W.P.(MD) Nos.4740 to 4742/2015)
^For Respondents : Mr.R.Anandharaj
Govt. Advocate
:ORDER
The petitioners have filed these writ petitions, seeking to quash the order of the 2nd respondent dated 06.03.2015, in and by which, the petitioners were dismissed from the college. The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents to readmit them in III year B.A., B.L., Degree course in 2014-2015 academic year in the 2nd respondent college and allow them to continue their studies.
2. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together for hearing for the purpose of disposal vide this common order. For the sake of brevity, facts are being taken from W.P.(MD) No.9323 of 2015, which read as follows:
i) The petitioner has submitted that he is doing his 3rd year in the 5 years B.A., B.L., Degree Course and whenever, there was protest in the interest of students, he also participated in it. While so, one Mrs.Krishnaleela, the Deputy Warden of the College Ladies Hostel exceeded her limit in the guise of checking girl students as to whether any student is having mobile phone in hostel, against which, the entire college went on strike. The petitioner also extended his fullest support to the said protest.
Being enraged over his support in protest against her, the Assistant Professor / Deputy Warden had lodged a complaint on 14.09.2014 and an FIR also came to be registered in Crime No.65 of 2014 on the file of the Contonment All Women Police Station on 10.11.2014 on the allegation of receiving some obscene message to her mobile phone.
ii) He has further submitted that when the 5th semester examination was going on, his roommates, namely, Saravana Bava and Palanisamy were arrested at the college gate itself on 17.12.2014 for the reason the alleged message was sent by using the SIM card of Palanisamy and that they were produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Trichy and remanded to judicial custody and that subsequently, they were released on bail. He has stated that though he was unaware of the entire episode, the enquiry committee insisted him to give a letter confessing the act of crime and due to their compulsion, he gave a letter on 08.01.2015 as dictated by the enquiry committee on the assurance that he will either be transferred to some other law college in the State or be imposed with certain conditions, but to the shock and surprise, he was suspended from the college on the very next day.
iii) He has also submitted that he was not an accused in the FIR and the veracity of the complaint can be ascertained only after the due investigation of the case and simply based on the FIR, an enquiry committee was appointed and the petitioner and other three were served with show cause notices dated 02.02.2015, calling upon them to respond to the same within 48 hours. However, after due extension of time, the petitioner submitted his reply on 09.02.2015. After receipt of replies, neither personal enquiry was conducted nor the complainant was examined as witness and without giving an opportunity to let their evidence to prove their innocence, the 2nd respondent has straightaway passed the impugned order, dismissed the petitioner and other three students from the college. Thus, the act of the 2nd respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice and though they met the 1st respondent seeking justice, their efforts ended in vain. The imposition of capital punishment of expelling him from the college is highly arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Though an interim enquiry report was submitted by the disciplinary committee on 09.01.2015, no final report has been submitted to the 2nd respondent by the committee.
iv) The submission of the petitioner is that only after completion of investigation, the real factum of registration of an FIR and exaggeration of the complainant's version will be known to all and that the 2nd respondent cannot pass the impugned order, when the criminal case is in the preliminary stage of investigation. Therefore, the petitioner prayed to set aside the impugned order with a direction to allow him to continue his 3rd year study.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed a common counter, wherein it has been stated as under:
i) One Mrs.S.Krishnaleela is working as Assistant Professor of Law and also the Deputy Warden of the Ladies Hostel of the Government Law College, Tiruchirappalli since 2009. On information that two of the girl students, namely, Ms.Vaisnavi and Ms.Radhika of 3rd year B.A.,B.L., were using mobile phones on 11.09.2014, the parents of the students were asked to meet the Principal. On their meeting with the principal on 12.09.2014, it came to light that Ms.Vaisnavi was not given any mobile phone by them and the same was given by one student, namely, Sivaguru of 3rd B.A.,B.L. without their knowledge.
ii) It is further stated in the counter that on coming to know that several students were clandestinely using mobile phones, a meeting was held in hostel on 13.10.2014 to verify who are all using mobile phones and also enlighten the students about the ill effects of the practice, due to which, an agitation was called for by the students on 15.10.2014 seeking permission to use mobile phones in the hostel. The said issue was also settled and therefore, the same has got no relevance to the case in hand, as portrayed by the petitioners. It is also stated that in the meanwhile, Mrs.Krishnaleela, the Deputy Warden lodged a complaint through the Principal stating that she received calls from Mobile No.+919543642926, abusing her in filthy language and that she was threatened with continuous SMSs, which is so vulgar and obscure. She also filed another complaint on 16.09.2014 in continuation with the previous one alleging that a Face Book accounts have also been opened in her name and that her mobile number is found in that account, pursuant to which, investigation was started by the Cyber Cell of Police. After forwarding the complaints to the Police, a separate departmental enquiry committee was constituted by the 2nd respondent to enquire about the complaint.
iii) It is represented in the counter that after thorough enquiry, Police registered an FIR in Crime No.65 of 2014 under Section 354D IPC r/w Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, 1998 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008 and on 17.12.2014, two of the petitioners, namely, Palanisamy and Saravana Bava were arrested. After receipt of the report from Police, the 2nd respondent sent a show cause notice and also intimated about the arrest of the students to their respective residential addresses. Both Palanisamy and Saravana Bava appeared in person, received the copy of the show cause notice and the written explanation submitted by them dated 05.01.2015 was forwarded to the departmental enquiry committee. After enquiry with both of them, an interim report dated 09.01.2015 was submitted, on the basis of which, Sivaguru was suspended from the college. Finally, the enquiry committee completed its enquiry and submitted its final report dated 22.01.2015 holding that Palanisamy, Saravana Bava, Sivaguru and Thirumani, who are staying under the one roof have indulged in the activities mentioned in the complaints of the Deputy Warden.
iv) It is the stand taken in the counter that in the enquiry, Sivaguru admitted that he has committed the above mentioned activities and Thirumani also has admitted that he was in the possession of the mobile phone used for such activities and that he has destroyed the same on the instructions of Palanisamy and Saravanabava, while they were in judicial custody. Based on the deposition made in the enquiry, the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that there are clinching evidences against them as per the findings of the enquiry committee and therefore, the findings of the committee were accepted in toto.
v) The further stand taken by the 2nd respondent is that the misconducts committed by the petitioners are very serious in nature, unbecoming of a student and disgrace to the society. Taking into account the safety and security of the female students and faculty members, the 2nd respondent took a decision to expel the students / petitioners from the institution. Therefore, a second show cause notice dated 02.02.2015 was served on the petitioners and as requested by them, copies of documents pertaining to the disciplinary action were given to them after extending the time to reply to the show cause notice. Though Thirumani, Palanisamy, and Saravana Bava submitted their explanations on 06.02.2015 and 12.02.2015 respectively, Sivaguru has submitted his explanation through his parents on 09.02.2015. It is stated that after scrutinizing the explanation, it was found that most of them were afterthoughts and without any basis and since satisfactory explanation was not found therein, the 2nd respondent by an order dated 06.03.2015, which is impugned herein expelled them from the college.
vi) It is strenuously stated in the counter that the petitioners are trying to mislead the Court and the petitioners were provided with ample opportunities and principles of natural justice were also scrupulously followed. Though several averments were made against the Police, they have not been impleaded as a party to the writ petition. The final orders of expulsion are not just for having friendship with Sivaguru, but for the proved misconducts and the final enquiry report reveals that all the four petitioners jointly conspired together to do these illegal activities, which cannot be relished at any point of time. Therefore, it is prayed that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were taken to task, pursuant to their participation in the protest against the Deputy Warden, who abused girl students in the guise of checking them for possession of mobile phones. He has also submitted that for the unproved charges against the petitioners, imposition of capital punishment, such as expulsion from college, will definitely result in deterioration of their future and they were just removed from the college citing some trivial and unacceptable reasons without affording any opportunity of personal hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument, has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Giasuddin vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1977 (3) SCC 287, wherein it has been held as under:
?4. Progressive criminologists across the world will agree that the Gandhian diagnosis of offenders at patients and his conception of prisons as hospitals-mental and moral-is the key to the pathology of delinquency and the therapeutic role of 'punishment' The whole man is a healthy man and every man is born good. Criminality is a curable deviance. The morality of the law may vary, but is real. The basic goodness of all human beings is a spiritual axiom, a fall- out of the advaita of cosmic creation and the spring of correctional thought in criminology.
8. An aside. A holistic view of sentencing and a finer perception of the effect of imprisonment give, short shrift to draconian severity as self-
defeating and fillips meditational relaxation, psychic medication and like exercises as apt to be more rewarding. Therefore, the emphasis has to be as much on man as on the system, on the inner imbalance as on the outer tensions. Perhaps the time has come for Indian criminologists to rely more on Patanjali sutra as a scientific curative for crimogenic factors than on the blind jail term set out in the Penal Code and that may be why western researchers are now seeking Indian yogic ways of normalising the individual and the group.
17. It will thus be seen that there is a great discretion vested in the Judge, especially when pluralistic factors , enter his calculations Even so, the judge must exercise this discretionary power, drawing his inspiration from the humanitarian spirit of the law, and living down the traditional precedents which have winked at the personality of the crime doer and been swept away by the features of the crime. What is dated has to be discarded. What is current has to, be incorporated. Therefore innovation, in all conscience, is in the field of judicial discretion. Unfortunately, the Indian Penal Code still lingers in the somewhat compartmentalised system of punishment viz. imprisonment simple or rigorous, fine and, of course, capital sentence. There is a wide range of choice and flexible treatment which must be available with the judge if he is to fulfil his tryst with cruing the criminal in a hospital setting. Maybe in an appropriate case actual hospital treatment may have to be prescribed as part of the sentence. In another case, liberal parole may have to be suggested and, yet in a third category, engaging in certain types of occupation or even going through meditational drills or other courses may be part of the sentencing prescription. The perspective having changed, the legal strategies and judicial resources, in their variety, also have to change. Rule of thumb sentences of rigorous imprisonment or other are too insensitive to the highly delicate and subtle operation expected of a sentencing judge. Release on probation, conditional sentences, visits to healing centres, are all on the cards. We do not wish to be exhaustive. Indeed, we cannot be.?
He has also referred to another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Controller, NEKRTC vs. H.Amaresh reported in AIR 2006 SC 2730 to contend that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and the High Court under Article 226 gets jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment only when it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved.
5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has contended that based on the final enquiry report, disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner after issuing show cause notices and hearing them and therefore, it is not correct to say that principles of natural justices were not followed. Moreover, the misconducts committed by them are grave in nature and therefore, they deserve for such punishment of expulsion. If the petitioners are allowed to continue their studies in the college, there will always be a threat to female members of the college and hence, the punishment imposed is in proportionate to the alleged crime. Therefore, the act of the respondents cannot be faulted with and he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents available on record.
7. A circumspection of the fact would reveal that the petitioners were dismissed from the college for their participation in the illegal activities, based on the complaint lodged by one Mrs.Krishna Leela, the Assistant Professor / Deputy Warden of the College. Police also registered a case in Crime No. 65 of 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 354D IPC r/w Section 4 of Women Harassment Act, 1998 and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2008. On a careful reading of the final enquiry report, it is apparent that the allegations made against the petitioners were dealt with in a transparent, but at the same time, in depth manner and there are certain words used by the petitioners in the SMS message, which cannot be incorporated in the order.
8. A perusal of the statement given by Sivaguru / petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.9323/2015 clearly indicates that he is the root cause for all the illegal activities and he deposed that pursuant to the scolding for not wearing uniform, he decided to take vengeance on the said Deputy Warden. He has admitted his guilt of making frequent phone calls and sending messages to Mrs. Krishnaleela, Deputy Warden, by using the SIM card purchased by Saravana Bava. But in Paragraph No.6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he has given totally different versions as if he was not aware of the messages alleged to be sent to Mrs.Krishna Leela and the contents of the message were also not revealed to him. In the statement furnished at Page No.71 of the typedset of papers, his signature is affixed with date and the said statement was also not denied by Sivaguru anywhere. Therefore, it creates doubt in the minds of this Court so as to come to a conclusion that he would have involved in the alleged crime. Though other petitioners in W.P.(MD) Nos.4740 to 4742 of 2015 alleged that they have no direct nexus with Sivaguru in the said occurrence, they also abetted to such incident by extending their support by way of providing SIM cards and mobile phones to him and therefore, they are also equally and vicariously responsible for such illegal activities.
9. In this country, teachers are regarded as Guru and Gods / Goddess and this Court has also described the importance of the teacher in the society by citing a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, reported in 1997(2) SCC 534, wherein it has been held as under:
?Before answering the question whether the order terminating the services of the appellant in terms of his appointment letter is in violation of the Rules or the principles of natural justice, it is necessary to consider the need for the education and the place of the teacher in that behalf. Article 45 of the constitution enjoins the State to endeavour to provide free and compulsory education to all children, till they complete the age of 14 years. The Supreme Court has held that right to education is a fundamental right and the State is required to organise education through its agencies or private institutions in accordance with the law and the regulations or the scheme. The State has taken care of service conditions of the teacher and he owes dual fundamental duties to himself and to the society. As a member of the noble teaching profession and a citizen of India he should always be willing, self disciplined, dedicated with integrity to remain ever a learner of knowledge, intelligently to articulate and communicate the imbibe in his students, as social duty, to impart education, to bring them up with discipline, inculcate to abjure violence and to develop scientific temper with a spirit of enquiry and reform constantly to rise to higher levels in any walk of life nurturing constitutional ideals enshrined in Article 51 A so as to make the students responsible citizens of the country. The quality, competence and character of the teacher are, therefore, most significant to mould the institutions and to sustain them in their later years of life as a responsible citizen in different responsibilities.?
10.Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation has stated that ?a teacher cannot be without character. If he lacks it, he will be like salt without its savour. A teacher must touch the hearts of his students. Boys imbibe more from the teacher's own life than they do from books. If teachers impart all the knowledge in the world to their students but do not inculcate truth and purity amongst them, they will have betrayed them. ...
.....Dr.S.Radhakrishnan has stated that ?we in our country look upon teacher as gurus or, as acharyas. An Acharya is one whose aachar or conduct is exemplary. He must be an example of Sadachar or good conduct. He must inspire the pupils who are entrusted to his care with love of virtue and goodness. ....?
11.It is in this backdrop, therefore, that the Indian society has elevated the teacher as ?Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha?. As Brahma, the teacher creates knowledge, learning, wisdom and also creates out of his students, men and women, equipped with ability and knowledge, discipline and intellectualism to enable them to face the challenges of their lives. As Vishnu, the teacher is preserver of learning. As Maheswara, he destroys ignorance. ....."
10. In yet another judgment in the case of The Secretary, Sri Ramakrishna Vidhyalayam High School, Tirupparaithurai, Tiruchirapalli District Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Special Commissioner and Secretary to Government and others, reported in 1990 (9) WLR 62, this Court has categorically held as follows:
?51.It is very lamentable state of affairs that in this country, a teacher who was considered as equal to God, should fall from the high pedestal to the lowest level. Out scriptures command the students to consider the teacher as a God (Acharya Devo Bhava). The term ?Acharya? in Sanskrit means a person who not only teaches lessons to students, but also ensures good conduct of his pupils. The more important part of the definition is that he shall himself practice what he preaches. In Sanskrit language the term ?Guru? also means teacher. The syllable ?Gu? represents darkness (symbolishing ignorance). The syllable ?Ru? represents the removal thereof. Thus, a Guru is so called as he removes the darkness and the ignorance from the minds of the students. In fact, there is a saying that it is only with the blessings of a teacher that a person blossoms into a full man.
11. It is to be remembered that law profession is already under severe criticism and due to the activities of lawyers in this State, it further started diminishing its reputation among public. If the persons, like petitioners are allowed to become lawyers, a situation may arise, where woman members of the Bar cannot attend the Court and the entire system will be ruined. Wonders may also happen in this country and we cannot predict, who will be elevated to the level of Judge and if such kind of persons is elevated, people will definitely lose their faith in the justice delivery system.
12. In olden days, respect extended to lawyers were inexplicable and that they were given utmost importance in the society. At this point of time, it is appropriate for me to recollect an incident told by my father that when my father was travelling in a Tram in Madras, a young chap got into it and was standing near to an old man. The old man asked the chap as to what he was doing and upon hearing that the young chap was a Lawyer, he immediately stood up and requested that chap to sit in his seat. Lawyer gained that kind of respect in those days and it is a million dollar question as to whether those days will come back.
13. Even many of our great leaders, like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Dr.B.R.Ambedkar are lawyers, who sacrificed their lives for the noble cause of justice besides fighting for freedom and several unknown lawyers had also lost their lives in the freedom struggle. In this case, lenient view cannot be taken, as the petitioners used obscene words against a woman Professor, who has to be regarded as Goddess, thereby describing her femininity in awkward language. In this regard, it is pertinent to observe what scriptures say about woman.
?The Quran admonishes those men who oppress or ill-treat women [Noble Quran 4:19]:
"O you who believe! You are forbidden to inherit women against their will. Nor should you treat them with harshness, that you may take away part of the dowry you have given them - except when they have become guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary live with them on a footing of kindness and equity. If you take a dislike to them, it may be that you dislike something and Allah will bring about through it a great deal of good."?
?Accordingly to Hindu mythology, the divine are extremely happy where women are respected; where they are not, all actions (projects) are fruitless.?
?As per Isaiah 3:12 As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.?
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the midst of argument has heavily relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of T.T.Chakravarthy Yuvaraj and others vs. Principal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical College (W.A.Nos.629 and 630 etc of 1996) decided on 05.11.1996, wherein it has been held as under:
?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.
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.?
However, a close reading of the said judgment would elicit that the students / petitioners therein were dismissed from the college on the charge of entering the college in drunken mood and damaging the college property and therefore, the Karnataka High Court took a different view as observed above. When entering the college in drunken mood was treated as a serious misconduct, warranting expulsion from the college, the act of the petitioners in the present case should be dealt with iron hand, otherwise there cannot be any self discipline.
15. This Court in a case in K.Saravanan vs. The Principal, Government Law College, Madurai (Writ Petition (MD) No.5840 of 2007), decided on 05.07.2007, has held as under, by referring to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
?7. A similar ruling was given by Mohan, J. in R.Satheesh (minor) rep. by father and natural guardian, C.Rajendran v. Director of Higher Secondary Education, (1989) 2 LW 206. The learned Judge held that in every case it cannot be insisted that there must be a memorandum of charge, an enquiry and a finding arrived at like a Court or a judicial proceeding. The learned Judge observed as follows:-
"It is well settled by now that a student, so long as he behaves himself properly, in a disciplined way in other words, as a student ought to behave, has every right to prosecute his studies. Such a right cannot be interfered with. As against this, should there be any act of indiscipline which is not conducive to the interests of the Institution, and which will pollute the educational atmosphere of the Institution or the calm of the Institution, certainly, the school authorities have every right to see that such a student who would not behave himself in a disciplined way is expelled from the school. Apart from the fact that such an indisciplined student is not only an undesirable element who spoils his own future, his conduct and character will have deleterious effect on others as well."
8. These decisions were followed subsequently by M.Srinivasan, J in the judgement reported in AIR 1993 Madras 233(Leo Francis Xaviour, v. The Principal, Karunya Institute of Technology, Coimbatore and another) and it has been held in paragraph 26 as follows:
"26. As it is found on the facts that there was an enquiry satisfying the requirements of the principles of of natural justice, this Court cannot interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Committee and the Consequential order of expulsion passed against the petitioner. The plea taken by the first respondent that it is a private college and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the petitioner against the said College is well founded. Inasmuch as the principles of natural justice have been complied with, this Court has not jurisdiction to interfere with the order of expulsion passed against the petitioner."
9. Further, it has also been held by the Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1991) 2 SCC 716 (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S.Gandhi and others) that the power of judicial review in case of student indiscipline is very limited and in such cases this Court does not sit in appeal over decisions of the school authorities.
10. Under these circumstances, no case is made out for warranting interference. Hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
16. By such a shameful act, the petitioners have brought disrespect to their parents, teachers, professional courses and themselves also. Children by the virtue of their behaviour, attitude, knowledge, nobility, obedience, duty towards parents, compassion towards poor and needy, broader human outlook etc, should make others to wonder or exclaim. The great Tamil Poet Thiruvallurvar in his verse Thirukkural has written about the duty of a son towards his father. The particular verse in Tamil, viz., Kural 70 is extracted below with its English translation:
?kfd; je;ijf;F Mw;Wk; cjtp ,td; je;ij vd; nehw;whd;bfhy; vDk; brhy; ? (Fws;?70)?
The duty of the son (children) to father (parents) is to make other to wonder. In poetic rhymes, ?What penace the father (parents) had done to beget him? (Kural:70)
17. As rightly pointed out in the impugned order, the petitioners, being grown-up students, especially law college students, were fully aware of what they were doing and if stringent punishment is not imposed upon them, there will be social menace more particularly feminine gender in the society, as ignorance can be cured, but stupid is forever. Though there is no need for the college to conduct a full fledged enquiry in the matter of students' indiscipline, in this case, an enquiry committee has been appointed and after thorough enquiry and based on its report, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order, expelling all the students from the college. Even assuming that there is some lapses on the part of the enquiry committee, taking into account the grave nature of the indisciplined act committed by them, this Court is of the view the impugned order of expulsion does not warrant any interference by this Court and the same is upheld.
18. Accordingly, all these Writ Petitions are dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Though it is a fit case to impose costs of Rs.10,000/- each, considering the fact since the petitioners are students and the costs will have to be borne by their parents, who will definitely be in tumultuous state for the act of their sons, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs.
To:
1. The Director of Legal Studies, Directorate of Legal Studies, The State of Tamil Nadu, Purosaivakkam High Road, Chennai.
2. The Principal Government Law College, Trichy.
.