B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) THE vindictive attitude of the members of the Enquiry Committee, constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-Nagarjuna University to enquire into the alleged incident that has taken place in the University Campus on 11-9-1994, who are compared next to the God, spoiled the bright career of a student and she has to fight the litigation for nothing for six long years. The entire teaching community has to bow its head in shame the way in which the members of the Committee conducted themselves in ruining the career of a student. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are that the petitioner while studying 2nd year Law in Nagarjuna University during the academic year 1994-95, one Jayalakshmi, a co-student of the petitioner, was admitted into the University Health Centre with abdomen pain. When the petitioner and some other students had been to the University Health Centre on the question whether the patient has to be referred to Guntur General Hospital or not, an altercation seemed to have taken place between the duty doctor one Jimmy Rani and the students. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that, another student by name Jhansi Rani made a complaint to the Registrar of the University on the behaviour of the duty doctor on 12-9-1994 and as a counter-blast that duty doctor gave a complaint to the Registrar on 13-9-1994 stating that the petitioner, Jhansi Rani and Shoukat Ali shouted at her using indecent words and thereby obstructed her from discharging her duties. Perhaps, having come to know of the complaint of the doctor, the petitioner also filed her complaint on 14-9-1994. Unfortunately, the complaints given by Jhansi Rani and the petitioner did not see the light of the day. But, the Vice-Chancellor of the University, on the basis of the complaint given by the duty doctor, constituted an Enquiry Committee with six members, including one P. Bhaskara Rao, Reader in Law, who is training the budding lawyers and who is expected to know the procedures to be followed in a domestic enquiry, by his proceedings dt. 21-11-1994, to enquire into the alleged incident. The Convenor issued a notice to the petitioner on 9-11-1994 to appear before the Committee at 1. 00 p. m. on 12-11-1994. 21-11-1994, to enquire into the alleged incident. The Convenor issued a notice to the petitioner on 9-11-1994 to appear before the Committee at 1. 00 p. m. on 12-11-1994. On that day the petitioner having appeared before the Committee gave a representation signed by 19 persons and requested the Committee to examine all the 19 persons to find out the truth of the allegations made by the duty doctor. But, without even examining the duty doctor, at that stage, the Committee seemed to have submitted a preliminary enquiry report, recommending suspension of the petitioner and Jhansi Rani from the College, to the Principal, who in turn placed the petitioner and Jhansi Rani under suspension by his proceedings dt. 6-12-1994. This has naturally caused alarm in the minds of the staff as well as the students and while the staff as well as the students are on strike, demanding withdrawal of the suspension order, on the midnight of 31st December, 1994, the Principal declared holidays from 1-1-1995 to 17-1-1995. This again enraged the students and some of them seemed to have sat on hunger strike and it went on up to 7-1-1995. Thereafter, the petitioner went on making representations to all the authorities in the State without any result. Under those circumstances, the petitoner filed Writ Petition No. 3437 of 1995 before this Court to quash the disciplinary proceedings and the suspension order and permit her to continue her studies. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 21-8-1995 directing the respondents to furnish a copy of the preliminary enquiry report within two weeks from that order and the petitioner was given two weeks time to submit her explanation. On receipt of the explanation the Disciplinary Committee was directed to complete the enquiry within four weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and considering the explanation to be filed by the petitioner. Pursuant to these orders the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 21-9-1995 and she submitted her explanation on 29-9-1995. On 16-10-1995 the Convenor of the Committee directed the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 27-10-1995. As her father seemed to be on sick bed she gave a telegram requesting the Committee to adjourn the enquiry to 3-11-1995. Pursuant to these orders the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 21-9-1995 and she submitted her explanation on 29-9-1995. On 16-10-1995 the Convenor of the Committee directed the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 27-10-1995. As her father seemed to be on sick bed she gave a telegram requesting the Committee to adjourn the enquiry to 3-11-1995. On 3-11-1995 she appeared before the Committee and according to her, on a suggestion from the members of the Committee she sought for adjournment, under the impression that the matter will be settled amicably, to 20-11-1995 and again to 27-11-1995. On 27-11-1995 the Committee adjourned the enquiry sine die. This contention of the petitioner was seriously disputed by the University by stating that she sought for adjournment voluntarily and she did not co-operate with the Committee to go ahead with the enquiry. Believing the version of the Committee to be true, on 27-11-1995 while adjourning the enquiry no date was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Committee seemed to have met on 27-12-1995. As there was no notice of hearing to the petitioner, she did not appear before the Committee. On 28-12-1995 the petitioner having been worried about her future, seemed to have given a telegram to the Principal to direct the Committee to complete the enquiry forthwith. On 29-12-1995 when one of the members of the Committe, having seen her in the University Campus, directed her to appear before the Committee at 1. 00 p. m. on the same day. But the petitioner, having not come to the University prepared to face the enquiry, made a representation on 30-12-1995 to the Convenor to fix a firm date for conducting enquiry and complete the same on the same day. Having received the representation the Convenor by his proceedings dt. 3-1-1996 found fault with the petitioner for not co-operating with the Committee to complete the enquiry and directed her to appear before the Committee on 10-1-1996. On 10-1-1996 the petitioner having appeared, filed another representation to furnish the charges levelled against her for holding domestic enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner did not hear anything from the Convenor. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed C. C. No. 46 of 1996 to punish the respondents for not complying with the orders of this Court. On 10-1-1996 the petitioner having appeared, filed another representation to furnish the charges levelled against her for holding domestic enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner did not hear anything from the Convenor. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed C. C. No. 46 of 1996 to punish the respondents for not complying with the orders of this Court. This Court having recorded the statement of the counsel for the University that the Disciplinary Committee of the University would conduct and complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks from that date and, in fact, having noticed the delaying tactics adopted by the University in completing the enquiry, directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the practical examination of Mute Court, and closed the Contempt Case on 9-2-1996. But, the solemn assurance given to this Court was again not implemented. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4035 of 1996 seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete her Law course by permitting her to appear for 1st, 2nd and 3rd year B. L. examinations by declaring the orders of suspension dt. 6-12-1994 as illegal and void. She also filed an application seeking interim direction to permit her to write the examinations that are going to commence from 26-3-1996. This Court seemed to have ordered notice on admission in the Writ Petition. When the petitioner had been to University on 1-3-1996 to serve notice of hearing, she came to know that the Committee has submitted its final report on 16-2-1996 recommending expulsion of the petitioner from the College and the Principal in turn expelled the petitioner from 6-12-1994, the day on which she was suspended. In those circumstances, she filed the second Writ Petition No. 4639 of 1996 to quash the expulsion order passed by the Principal by issuance of Writ of Certiorari. She also filed W. P. M. P. No. 5658 of 1996 seeking direction to the respondents to receive examination fee and permit her to write the examinations suspending the expulsion order. In the above W. P. M. P. by order dt. 8-3-1996 this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the examinations and withhold the results until further orders. In the above W. P. M. P. by order dt. 8-3-1996 this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the examinations and withhold the results until further orders. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another W. P. M. P. No. 20202 of 1996 seeking declaration of the results by the respondents and permit her to appear for supplementary examinations, in case she failed in any of the subjects in any of the three years. This Court by order dt. 14-8-1996 directed the respondents to declare the results within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Again, the W. P. M. P. seemed to have come up for hearing on 30-8-1996 and this Court while ordering notice to the Controller of Examinations to appear in the Court personally after two weeks, directed him to receive the fee from the petitioner for 2nd and 3rd year B. L. examinations, pending further orders. Pursuant to the said directions, the results of the petitioner were declared by the University on 13-9-1996. Now, both the Writ Petitions are listed for hearing before this Court. ( 3 ) AS far as W. P. No. 4035 of 1996 is concerned, it outlived its purpose and no orders need be passed in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. ( 4 ) COMING to Writ Petition No. 4639 of 1996, this Court is called upon to decide whether the action of the Principal in expelling the petitioner from the College, moreso with retrospective effect, is in accordance with law or not. ( 5 ) ON hearing arguments at length, I have no manner of doubt that in this case there is something more than what it meets the eye, which resulted in wasting the career of a student for about four years. In the normal course, this Court would have probed deep into the matter and fixed the answerability and would have recommended disciplinary action against the members of the Committee, after exposing the fraud played by them on the petitioner. But I am restraining from doing so on the solemn assurance given by the Senior Counsel Sri Koka Raghava Rao, appearing for the University, that there is sea-change in the administration of the University and he will personally advise the Vice-Chancellor to look into the matter and to safeguard the interest of the petitioner. But I am restraining from doing so on the solemn assurance given by the Senior Counsel Sri Koka Raghava Rao, appearing for the University, that there is sea-change in the administration of the University and he will personally advise the Vice-Chancellor to look into the matter and to safeguard the interest of the petitioner. ( 6 ) FIRST, as far as the enquiry is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the Committee has neither examined the petitioner, nor the list of the witnesses cited by her. They tried to defend their order by contending that on the first three occasions the petitioner did not co-operate with the enquiry. As observed supra, I presume that the petitioner did not co-operate with the enquiry for the purpose of disposing of the Writ Petition in the light of the severe allegations made by the petitioner against the members of the Committee. That does not absolve the members of the Committee in conducting the domestic enquiry in a manner known to law. Moreso, when the Committee itself went on adjourning the enquiry from time to time after 3-11-1995. I have already referred supra how the Committee went on adjourning the hearing. Hence, there is no substance in contending that because of the non-co-operation of the petitioner on the first three dates of hearing they failed to submit final report on 16-2-1996. Hence, that ground is rejected. ( 7 ) FURTHER, it is the case of the respondents that the duty doctor Jimmy Rani was examined on 10-1-1996 in the presence of the petitioner. But, when this Court asked the counsel for the respondents, whether the Committee has given any opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the duty doctor, the answer is that she refused to cross-examine the doctor. When this Court further confronted the counsel whether they have obtained any endorsement to the effect that she is not willing to cross-examine the duty doctor, in the light of the bad-blood that was flowing between the members of the Committee and the petitioner, coupled with the fact that the petitioner was moving every possible institution, including this Court, seeking redressal of her grievance, the answer is that the Committee did not obtain any endorsement to that effect. It is rather a bitter-pill to swallow. It is rather a bitter-pill to swallow. Further, it is not known how the Committee submitted its report without examining the petitioner and the list of the witnesses cited by her. This very fact, coupled with the subsequent events that are going to be referred, clinchingly establish that, if not the entire Committee, at least some of the members of the Committee are after-blood of the petitioner, and I hold that the entire proceedings in the domestic enquiry are vitiated by mala fides and that the same have to be set aside. The interesting factor in this case is that the same Committee was also directed to conduct enquiry into the conduct of the co-student of the petitioner-Jhansi Rani and the Committee submitted its final report in her case on 12-9-1995 wherein the Committee recommended expulsion of both the students. It is not known when the enquiry with regard to the petitioner is still pending how they could recommend the expulsion of the petitioner also along with Jhansi Rani on 12-9-1995. In fact, on the basis of this report Jhansi Rani was expelled from the College on 11-10-1995. ( 8 ) FUFURTHER the glaring illegality committed by the respondents is that the Committee recommended for expulsion of the petitioner from the date of suspension i. e. 6-12-1994, which is unknown to law. To be more specific the question of expelling the student with retrospective effect does not arise and it is unfortunate to note that a teacher, who is involved in training the future lawyers, is a party to this report. It shows that this teacher does not know ABCDs of law and it is for the University to examine whether such a person can be continued as a Reader in Law to train the future lawyers. Basing on the report of the Committee, the Principal expelled the petitioner by his proceedings dt. 27-2-1996 with retrospective effect which is again vitiated by illegalities. ( 9 ) FURTHER, the incident alleged against the petitioner and her co-students was that they have entered into an altercation with the duty doctor. Perhaps having agitated over the health of their co-student and for that, this Committee recommends the expulsion of the student from the College itself without knowing the implications of the recommendation made by them. ( 9 ) FURTHER, the incident alleged against the petitioner and her co-students was that they have entered into an altercation with the duty doctor. Perhaps having agitated over the health of their co-student and for that, this Committee recommends the expulsion of the student from the College itself without knowing the implications of the recommendation made by them. As already observed, the teachers, who are given place next to the God, conduct themselves in this manner, perhaps, the future of the student community will be at peril. During the course of arguments the petitioner brought to my notice that while she was going to University Registrar s Office to submit her application for 1st year examination, she was stabbed in the University campus and a criminal case is pending against the concerned. She has also tried to produce several Press clippings to establish the vindictive attitude of the teaching staff of the Nagarjuna University against her for a trivial issue like an altercation with the duty doctor at a time they did not know about the health condition of their co-student. For all these reasons, I hold that the whole proceedings are the result of the bias and vindictive attitude of the teachers concerned and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the entire disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner, including the order of expulsion, are quashed. ( 10 ) NOW the second question to be considered is whether the University should be permitted to conduct a de novo enquiry or not. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner was subjected to mental agony for over six years over a trivial issue. I feel that it is not a case for allowing the University for reopening the enquiry at this length of time. Hence, I direct that a quietus should be given to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Vice-Chancellor in his proceedings dt. 21-1-1994. I feel that it is not a case for allowing the University for reopening the enquiry at this length of time. Hence, I direct that a quietus should be given to the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the Vice-Chancellor in his proceedings dt. 21-1-1994. ( 11 ) THE third question that falls for consideration in this case would be whether the University authorities can insist for putting up required attendance as per the UGC guidelines to permit the petitioner to appear for the examinations and my answer would be no for the simple reason that the petitioner was harassed by the University officials for no fault of her in not attending the college and prosecute her studies and she was subjected to mental and physical agony for over six years. The Vice-Chancellor is directed to permit the petitioner to appear for the examinations by relaxing the Rule relating to requirement of putting up minimum attendance. ( 12 ) THE fourth question that falls for consideration would be whether it is safe to permit the petitioner to write the examinations in the University Campus and allowing the teaching staff to value her papers. As I have not referred the entire factual ground, in the light of the assurance given by the counsel for the University, I am of the opinion that these two things cannot be permitted. Accordingly, I direct the Vice-Chancellor to permit the petitioner to write the examinations at Siddardha Law College, Vijayawada, affiliated to Nagarjuna University, and give necessary instructions to the Examination Superintendent at that College to keep the answer scripts of the petitioner in each subject in a sealed cover under his signature and from there send the papers to the Vice-Chancellor of the Andhra University, who in turn shall get the papers of the petitioner valued by the Law teachers of the Andhra University and communicate the marks obtained by the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor of the Nagarjuna University to take further action in the matter. ( 13 ) AS the examinations for 2nd and 3rd year were already commenced, unfortunately the petitioner lost another six months and she has to wait for the next examinations to be conducted in September 2000. As far as the first year examinations are concerned, the petitioner submits that they are going to commence in April, 2000. ( 13 ) AS the examinations for 2nd and 3rd year were already commenced, unfortunately the petitioner lost another six months and she has to wait for the next examinations to be conducted in September 2000. As far as the first year examinations are concerned, the petitioner submits that they are going to commence in April, 2000. If it is a fact, the Vice-Chancellor shall receive the examination fee from the petitioner, even if the time prescribed for payment of the fee is expired, and permit her to writ the first year examinations as per the directions given above. The University shall publish the results and issue certificate in the event. The petitioner comes out of the examinations successfully. If she fails in any of the examinations, which she is going to attempt pursuant to the orders of this Court, as she is always eligible to write the subsequent examinations, the same procedure indicated above shall be followed by the Vice-Chancellor. ( 14 ) THE last question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to have her costs. My answer is emphatic yes and the advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 6,000. 00 (Rupees six thousand only ). The University shall initially pay the amount to the petitioner and recover the same from the members of the enquiry committee, who are three in number. ( 15 ) THE Writ Petition No. 4639 of 1996 is accordingly allowed. ( 16 ) AS it is likely to take some time to take certified copy of the order, the counsel for the University shall inform the result of the writ petition to the Vice-Chancellor of the University and direct him to receive the examination fee from the petitioner without insisting for production of certified copy of the order. Petition allowed.