JUDGMENT P.D. Desai, C.J.—The Court observes from the affidavit dated August 18, 1984, and the Annexures thereto, filed by the Director-Principal, Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla, that the case of Ashwani Kumar has been dealt with by the College Council only on the basis of his misconduct in representing himself as Ashok Kumar before the police, thus suppressing his real identity and impersonating for a fictitious person. The College Council was of the view that when Ashwani Kumar asked for an umbrella from his two female class-mates at the instance of some senior students, his conduct could not be regarded as falling within the concept of "Eve-teasing" and that, therefore, no action was called for against him in connection with the incident in which he was found to have been involved. 2. The Court does not propose to interfere with the action taken by the College Council on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. However, the Court would like to make a few observations for the future guidance of the College Council in such or similar cases. 3. The word “Eve-teasing" is a word of wide import. It has no fixed or precise meaning which can be applied to all the situations. On the facts and. in the circumstances of each case, a reasonable inference will have to be drawn whether the proved conduct with a member of the female sex is such which could be regarded as amounting to "teasing", that is, disturbing or annoying by persistent irritating or provoking action or petty tenacious request, or attempting to provoke anger or resentment or to compel acquiescence by persistent efforts, or engaging in any activity which amounts to tormenting, tantalizing, provoking or importuning. The presence of these factors or any of them in the conduct of a male student with a member of the other sex will constitute "Eve-teasing. These guiding factors may be borne in mind by the College Council while dealing with such charges, 4. When a college student is found to be involved in a misconduct in respect of which a report is also lodged with the police, the College authorities are not obliged under all circumstances to close their eyes and to postpone taking any action for such misconduct on the ground that the law must be allowed to take its own course. When a college student is found to be involved in a misconduct in respect of which a report is also lodged with the police, the College authorities are not obliged under all circumstances to close their eyes and to postpone taking any action for such misconduct on the ground that the law must be allowed to take its own course. The proper course under such circumstances, would be to consider, on the basis of such material as is available with the College authorities, whether any action in accordance with law for the misconduct is expedient and necessary in the interest of the academic discipline. 5. If it is found in a given case that besides the student named, some other students are also found to have been involved in any activity amounting to misconduct, the duty of the College authorities does not end merely by dealing with the student concerned. They must also initiate action against the other students who are found to be involved in the misconduct. Having held a proper enquiry in accordance with law, all such student (s) must be dealt with as facts and circumstances of the case require. 6. In the case of Pushap Raj Shitak and Pritam Chand, the Court has perused the affidavit dated August 7, 1984, filed by both these students as well as the affidavit dated August 18, 1984 filed by the Director-Principal, Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla. The Court is satisfied that the apology was not tendered by these two students as a result of any plea-bargaining and that no assurance was held out by the College authorities that they will be treated leniently if they offered apology. Having regard to the recommendation! made by the Ragging Investigation Committee, the orders at Annexures 30 and 31 are quashed and set aside and the case of those two students is directed to be re-examined by the College Council which will pass appropriate orders in accordance with law against them for the misconduct in question bearing in mind all the circumstances of the case. 7. The Court observes that the direction given in paragraph (5) of the order dated July 24, 1984. 7. The Court observes that the direction given in paragraph (5) of the order dated July 24, 1984. to the Director-Principal, Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla, in regard to the action taken or proposed to be taken with a view to keeping under check the activities of the 14 students named by the Committee at page 6 of the report as having been involved in the ragging in the past, so that they do not indulge in such activities in future, has not been fully carried out. In paragraphs 12 and 14 of the affidavit dated August 18, 1984, the Director-Principal, Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla, has furnished information regarding the action taken in connection with the 9 out of those 14 students. There is no reference to the action taken or proposed to be taken qua the rest. The Director-Principal, Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla, will file a supplementary affidavit reporting compliance with the direction of the Court in regard to the remaining students. Adjourned to September 11, 1984. Dasti order on usual terms. Order accordingly.