Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The incident that gave rise to the action in question had taken place within the college premises on the night of November 13, 1995. It is alleged that certain students arrived at the spot where a statue of the late Dr. B. R. Ambedkar has been put up and that they were playing music, that they consumed alcohol and it is alleged that subsequently they poured the alcohol along with various eatables that they were consuming on the statue. In sum and substance, the allegation is that the statue in question was defiled or desecrated. The further allegation is that the spectacles were removed from the face of the statue and taken away. These incidents are alleged to have taken place around midnight of that day and the charge is that the security staff who were present there tried to stop the students in question from what they were doing. According to the version of the security staff, these students who had come there in cars were wholly and totally out of control. They have alleged that the students not only did not listen to the security staff but that they threatened and intimidated them. According to the version of the security staff they made various references to their position and particularly their financial capacities. They also threatened the staff with dire consequences if they came in their way and after the performance which I have briefly narrated, that they finally went away. The security staff state that they cleaned up the area to whatever extent they could and that they lodged a complaint with their superior Officers on the next morning, who in turn communicated the facts to the Principal. Thereafter the Principal of the college made certain enquiries and it is his case that he immediately sent for the students in question. Out of those who had been sent for, three students did not appear before him and the remaining came to his office. According to the Principal, he held an enquiry for purposes of ascertaining as to who were responsible for the incidents of the previous night. It is his case that in the course of the enquiry one of the students by the name of Chakravarthy wrote out certain names on a piece of paper and that he also indicated that car numbers that had been used on the previous night. The Principal also states that he sent for the security staff who had witnessed the incident and that he recorded their statements in the enquiry as also the statements of some other persons. The security staff are supposed to have identified seven of the students, four on the basis of personel identification and three on the basis of photographs from the admission forms which were in the college records. On the basis of this enquiry, the Principal held these seven persons guilty of acts of serious misconduct and passed an order dated November 20, 1995 expelling the seven students from the college with immediate effect. I need to mention here that the Principal on the same day also lodged a complaint with the police in respect of the same incident and that the police authorities have commenced certain proceedings. Those proceedings are not the subject-matter of these petitions but the limited reference is made because the petitioners learned Advocates have advanced certain significant submissions with regard to the lodging of that complaint which is the limited reason why I have referred to them in this judgment.

7. The main thrust of the challenge is directed towards the contention that the holding of the enquiry on November 14, 1995 does not conform with the requirements of the principles of natural justice. The learned Advocates have submitted that the incident had an unfortunate fall out and the repercussions are said to have been very serious but more importantly, that as far as the careers of the students are concerned, that the action has had very far reaching consequences and it is therefore submitted that before punishment of this type could have been meted out to the students, that an enquiry that passes the test of fairness was necessary. They submit that even if the respondents case is to be accepted, that the Principal alleges that he sent for the students concerned after coming to know from his enquiries as to who according to him had taken part in the incident whereas it is his version that after the students came, he conducted the fact finding enquiry for purposes of ascertaining the correct position. The petitioners learned Advocate submitted that assuming without admitting that the students were sent for, that they were totally unaware of the charges levelled against them and secondly that they did not have a full and fair opportunity of defending themselves. As far as these two aspects of the matter are concerned, I shall presently demonstrate while dealing with the case law on the point that the Courts are required to take special cognizance of the fact that enquiries relating to academic bodies are within an entirely different sphere. These are not Court proceedings nor are they on par with disciplinary proceedings and the principles that have emerged from the various cases and which can be culled out therefrom are to the effect that in such instances, all that is required is that the procedure followed should be fair and that the person against whom the allegations are levelled is aware of what the charges are and that the person concerned should not he deprived of an opportunity of presenting his defence. It is from this angle alone that the validity or otherwise of the enquiry that was held will have to be ascertained. The College Principal has in this case stated what is reproduced in the impugned order that the solitary eye-witness to the incident was the security guard Suresh. He has also relied on the statements of the security Officer to whom the incident was reported which is supportive evidence. As far as Suresh is concerned, admittedly he was the security guard posted in the college and was on duty near the statue where the incident took place. From the record it is clear particularly from the statements of the witnesses, that the incident was of a sufficiently long duration insofar as this was not a mere hit and run case. His version is that the students in question started playing music, that they were consuming alcohol and that they thereafter poured some of the alcohol and food-stuffs on the statue and removed the spectacles. All this has taken sometime and the security guard Suresh who was present there and who has witnessed the incident had more than an adequate opportunity to view the persons taking part in the incident and I need to further record that the incident was one of a very unusual complexion insofar as even if the aspect of playing music and consuming some drinks is nothing exceptional, the latter part of it concerning the statue was sufficient to have caused a high degree of alarm in the mind of the security guard. He was obviously aware of the fact that he would have to report the incident to his superiors and being a person who has been posted in the college, the normal reaction of the person would have been to try and ascertain as to precisely who the persons involving themselves in the act were. The added factor is that these were not students of some other institution but happened to be students of that very college. These are circumstances which one needs to take into consideration because the Principal did not merely record the statement of Suresh and remain content with that but he had also asked Suresh to identify the persons who had taken part in the incident. Suresh did identify four persons at that time and he also picked out from the Photographs shown to him three other students whose names are also set-out in the order but who were not present at the time of the enquiry. This identification has taken place during the enquiry and the four students who are present, as emerged from the record did not dispute the identification. Thereafter the Principal has also relied on the evidence of Sri Sampath who is the Security Supervisor. These persons' statements were recorded at the time when the enquiry was held and there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners who were present had disputed the correctness of all these materials. On the contrary the hand written document given by one of them more than fully corroborates the evidence of Suresh and Sampath. It is from this document, that one needs to ascertain as to whether the criticism levelled against the holding of this enquiry by the petitioners learned Advocates who contend that it was not a fair and correct enquiry, requires to be upheld. It is quite obvious from the sequence of events on that date and thereafter that there was no dispute with regard to what had transpired in the course of the enquiry and had the petitioners wanted to dispute anything, to my mind they would certainly have placed it on record. The reason for this is that the record indicates that very unfortunately, this incident did have a very sporadic reaction insofar as all sorts of forces were let loose immediately which were not confined to the college premises only but erupted elsewhere. In this background there can be no two opinions about the fact that the petitioners themselves right from the very beginning were fully aware of the gravity and repercussions of what had happened. Under these circumstances for purposes of assessing whether the petitioners were denied any opportunity of placing any defence before the enquiry or in disputing the evidence, the Court will have to ascertain as to whether or not the evidence in this case has virtually gone uncontroverted and that even at a subsequent point of time no grievance of any type has been put forward. This very briefly summarises the state of record. I do concede that at this point of time a serious argument has been advanced that all this evidence, requires to, be carefully tested and that consequently, if at all any action is warranted, that a fresh enquiry should be held. The position remains however that the evidence has gone undisputed and that no grievances were made at the time when the enquiry was held or immediately thereafter and that consequently it is not open several months later to find fault either with the fairness or correctness of the holding of the enquiry, both of which factors are perfectly in order.