Judgment : 1. In both the writ petitions, the order of the respondent dated 12.4.1991 has been challenged and to direct him to permit the petitioners to continue their course in the third year B.A (History) Course in the respondent college. Both the petitioners are studying in the second year B.A (History) Decree Course. The petitioner in W.P.No.6125 of 1991 is the Students Secretary of the College Union. It seems certain disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners and on 15 3.1991 the Principal in charge sent a communication to the petitioners that an enquiry will be held on 21.3.1991 in his room. It is alleged that on the date of enquiry they were alone enquired and the Enquiry Officer did not examine any other person. It is also alleged that no show cause notice was issued to them and they were not given any opportunity to cross-examine the persons alleged to have been involved in the issue. It is alleged in the affidavit that before taking a decision to dismiss the students, the respondent should have followed the principles of natural justice and the connection of the petitioners is that the order has. been passed arbitrarily without applying the mind. It is stated in the affidavit that no reason has been given for arriving at the conclusion that the alleged charges have been proved. It is also alleged in the affidavit that the impugned order relies upon the letter given by the petitioners prior to the enquiry proceedings, namely, the letter dated 9.3.1991. According to the petitioners, if the petitioners have given such a letter for obtaining Transfer Certificate voluntarily, there was no need for an enquiry at all. With these allegations, the petitioners have come before this Court. 2. Notice of motion was ordered by me on 19.4.1991. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Mr.Arivudainambi, learned Government Advocate produced before me the records. I find from the records that on 18.3.1991, the Enquiry Committee was formulated for enquiry of the petitioner in W.P.No.6125 of 1991 on21.3.1991andor 22.3.1991 for the petitioner in W.P.No.6126 of 1991. Notice of motion was ordered by me on 19.4.1991. Though no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Mr.Arivudainambi, learned Government Advocate produced before me the records. I find from the records that on 18.3.1991, the Enquiry Committee was formulated for enquiry of the petitioner in W.P.No.6125 of 1991 on21.3.1991andor 22.3.1991 for the petitioner in W.P.No.6126 of 1991. The Enquiry Committee which gave the findings on the charges framed against the petitioners consisted of about seven persons and this Committee has suggested that the petitioners along with one other student can be given Transfer Certificate and the Conduct Certificate and in the Conduct Certificate against the column ‘Conduct’, the words’, unsatisfactory should be written. It is also suggested by the Committee that at any cost all the three students should not be admitted in that college in future. It is signed by the Convener of the Enquiry Committee on 23.3.1991.I find a notice by the petitioner has been issued to the Principal-respondent on 23.3.1991 stating that if the order of interim suspension is not revoked they are going to stage a fasting. On the report of the Enquiry Committee, the College Counsel met on 10.4.1991 and accepted the findings of the Enquiry Committee except the portion where endorsement in the conduct certificate has to be made as ‘unsatisfactory’. Then the Council passed a resolution not to admit the students in the institution in future. The respondent has intimated this to the Director of Collegiate Education. I find from the records that on the same day, the impugned order came to be passed. I find from the file a communication dated 30.4.1991 from the Bharadhidasan University stating that the duty of despatching the Transfer Certificate and the Conduct Certificate is that of the Principal and not of the University. However I find both the covers sent to the petitioners by Registered post and not been received and had been returned. 3. I heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order refers to a letters given voluntarily by the petitioners. 3. I heard Mr.K.Govindarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and the impugned order refers to a letters given voluntarily by the petitioners. From the records I find that the letters have been obtained from the petitioner long before the enquiry even in the month of March, 1991. That is both the letters are dated 11.3.1991. Both the letters read that the petitioner are willing to go out of the college by receiving the Transfer Certificate and the Conduct Certificate. This has been endorsed by the Head of Department (History) also. However the enquiry took place only on 18.3.1991 and the College council passed the resolution as stated supra. 4. From the records it is clear that the letters of the petitioners are prior to the date of enquiry and these letters have been relied upon in the impugned order. A reading of the impugned order shows as if the petitioner gave the letters only at the enquiry. This shows the non-application of mind on the part of the respondent. Having obtained letters from the petitioners that they wi11 get out of the college by getting Transfer Certificate and Conduct Certificate voluntarily, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner I do not find any necessity for holding an enquiry. If the respondent wanted to rely upon the letters given by the petitioner, they could have issued the Transfer Certificate and the Conduct Certificate. That has not been done in this case. As such, reliance placed by the respondent on the letters said to have been by the petitioners on 11.3.1991 is wholly erroneous. Even the enquiry letters produced before me do not show that a proper enquiry has been conducted. It is true, strict adherence of rules of natural justice and Evidence Act is not applicable especially in disciplinary proceedings against the students of a college. It is also true that the head of the College is the proper authority to decide as to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over it. But, however, it is open to this Court, in my view to see whether fair procedure is adopted. It is also true that the head of the College is the proper authority to decide as to initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and it is not for this Court to sit in appeal over it. But, however, it is open to this Court, in my view to see whether fair procedure is adopted. Even if it is the administrative order, the trend now is that it should have-been passed after a fair procedure. In this case, I find it is absent. 5. In that view, I suggested to the learned Government Advocate to find out from the Director of Collegiate Education whether the petitioners can be accommodated in any other college nearby. As the petitioners belong to Tiruturaipoondi in Thanjavur District and there are Government Colleges in and around Tiruthuraipoondi I gave a suggestion to the learned Government Advocate that in order to avoid any future friction among the petitioners and the college authorities, the petitioners may be admitted in some other college within Thanjavur District in the third year. Unfortunately, the learned Government Advocate is not able to get a reply from the Director of Collegiate Education and the matter stood adjourned twice. As such, I am of the view, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and to avoid any future friction between the authorities concerned and the students, this is a fit case where the petitioners can be transferred to any other Government College in Thanjavur District. In view of that, I am inclined to direct the Director of Collegiate Education, though he is not a party here, to get the petitioners/students admitted in any of the Government college in Thanjavur District at the earliest, i.e., on or before 31.8.1991. This, in my view, is in the interest of justice and equity and also taking into consideration the future of the students and that they have got only one more year for completing the course. This will also safeguard the interest of the respondent college in maintaining discipline in the college. It is also well settled that this Court can mould the relief to suit the occasion. I am inclined to direct the Director of Collegiate Education to transfer the petitioners students to any other Government College in Thanjavur District. This will also safeguard the interest of the respondent college in maintaining discipline in the college. It is also well settled that this Court can mould the relief to suit the occasion. I am inclined to direct the Director of Collegiate Education to transfer the petitioners students to any other Government College in Thanjavur District. A direction also will issue to the respondent-Principal to initiate action to see that the petitioners are admitted in any other Government College in Thanjavur District. The writ petitions are ordered accordingly. No costs.