M/S. Kesoram Cotton Mills Ltd vs Gangadhar And Others on 3 April, 1963
One cannot make an effective defence in vacuum. If in these circumstances the petitioner did not say on that day that he wanted to cross-examine the persons who gave statements on that day, I cannot find fault with him. An institution like the College in question conducting a domestic enquiry must scrupulously follow the principles of natural justice, especially in a case like this where the punishment Imposed would blast the career of a student and apolt his reputation and good name. See the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kesoram Cotton Mills v. Gangadhar, AIR 1964 SC 70S and Board of High School and Intermediate Education U. P. Allahabad v. Bagleshwar Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 875 and the decisions of the Allahabad and Punjab High Courts in Surendra Kumar Mehrotra v. Secy., Board of Technical Education, U. P. Lucknow, AIR 1066 All 207 and Karamjit Kaur v. Punjab University, AIR 1964 Punjab 327 respectively. In AIR 1966 S. C. 875 the Supreme Court said: