Judgment :- The Order of the Court was as follows : The prayer is for a certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent pursuant to the order dt. 25-10-1999, quash the said order and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue B.Com. course in the first respondent-College. 2. The facts leading to the writ petition are as follows : The petitioner is a student of the IIIrd year B.Com. class in the first respondent-College. He belongs to the backward class. A group of students used to constantly tease the students belonging the petitioner's community. The petitioner brought this situation to the notice of the Principal and requested him to take stern action against the said students. The Principal, instead of taking action against those students, sided with them and threatened action against the petitioner. The Principal did not stop with that, he gave a complaint to the police against the petitioner making untrue allegations, that the petitioner had used abusive language and purportedly committed offences under S. 294(b) read with S. 506, I.P.C. The petitioner was compelled to move the Court for anticipatory bail. He was granted anticipatory bail on condition that he should report daily to the Devakottai Town Police Station at 10.00 a.m. in the meantime, the first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. As the petitioner had to report to the police everyday, he was not present at the time when notice was sought to be served on him. It would appear from the order dt. 25-10-1999 removing the petitioner from the rolls in the College, that an enquiry was purportedly held on 4-10-1999, and a show cause notice was purportedly issued on 12-10-1999. The petitioner had not received either of the communications. In disciplinary proceedings, it is of the utmost importance to serve the communications. The petitioner was denied an opportunity of explaining his position. There has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice. The report of the enquiry had also not been given to him. The petitioner is innocent and the proceedings against him have been initiated on account of communal hatred. The order of removal is null and void and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The petitioner has also sought for permission to appear for the Vth Semester examination commencing on 3-11-1999. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 2-11-1999. 4-5. The petitioner is innocent and the proceedings against him have been initiated on account of communal hatred. The order of removal is null and void and, therefore, liable to be set aside. The petitioner has also sought for permission to appear for the Vth Semester examination commencing on 3-11-1999. 3. The writ petition was admitted on 2-11-1999. 4-5. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. The relevant portions are as under : The petitioner has wilfully suppressed several material facts. The petitioner, who is the IIIrd B.Com. student, has often indulged in undesirable activities within the college campus and during college hours and has come to adverse notice of the college and he was also warned several times. His mother was informed about his son's improper behaviour. For all those occasions, the petitioner admitted his misbehaviour and pleaded for pardon. He also promised to maintain good behaviour and conduct in the college in future. But the promises were never kept. On 29-9-1999, there was a clash among a few students in College. The petitioner indulged in assaulting co-students and when it came to the notice of the first respondent, he enquired into the matter and pacified the students involved in the clash. Subsequently, the petitioner herein and a few other students suddenly barged into the Principal's chamber without his permission. The petitioner abused him using filthy words which cannot be reproduced as they would offend the dignity of this Court. The petitioner also held out a threat that when this respondent came out of the College, he would be killed. On the same day, this respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the police. The complaint was taken on file for an offence under S. 294(b) read with S. 506 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No. 154/99. The petitioner was called, along with his parents, for enquiry on 4-10-1999. Though he received a copy of the notice, did not choose to attend the enquiry. On 8-10-1999, his mother voluntarily came to the college and told this respondent that she was under the impression that the enquiry was posted to that date. She admitted that her son had committed serious mistakes and pleaded that he should be excused for his misbehaviour. The College council was not satisfied and decided to issue a fresh notice and hold an enquiry. Subsequently, a notice dt. She admitted that her son had committed serious mistakes and pleaded that he should be excused for his misbehaviour. The College council was not satisfied and decided to issue a fresh notice and hold an enquiry. Subsequently, a notice dt. 12-10-1999 was issued to the petitioner with regard to the incident that took place on 29-10-1999 amongst the students, that the incident that took place in the chamber of this respondent on this respondent on the said date and certain other allegations against the petitioner. He was called upon to show cause before 29-9-1999 as to why action should not be taken to remove him from the College. It was also stated in the said notice, if no explanation was received, it would be decided that he had no explanation to offer, and further proceedings would be taken. The notice was sent by Registered Post with acknowledgment due to the petitioner, as well as to his mother. Both of them refused to receive the notice and the postal authorities had given intimation of the registered letter to the petitioner and his mother, and kept the registered letters in deposit for the prescribed time and as they were not claimed by the petitioner and his mother, they were returned to the College. In the meantime, on 15-10-1999, knowing about the enquiry that has been instituted against him, the petitioner appeared before this respondent and admitted the intolerable and undisciplined behaviour in the College on 29-9-1999 and tendered apology for the same. In the said letter, he had also stated that he might be directed not to attend the College for the entire period, but be permitted to sit for the examination alone and promised he would behave properly in future. Since the petitioner refused to receive the show cause notice dt. 12-10-1999 and did not participate in the enquiry, the college counsel decided to remove the petitioner from the Institution with effect from 25-10-1999 and the same was also intimated to the University under a letter dt. 26-10-1999. While matters stood thus, this respondent received a telegraphic communication from this Court bearing date 2-11-1999. 12-10-1999 and did not participate in the enquiry, the college counsel decided to remove the petitioner from the Institution with effect from 25-10-1999 and the same was also intimated to the University under a letter dt. 26-10-1999. While matters stood thus, this respondent received a telegraphic communication from this Court bearing date 2-11-1999. Since there was no time to direct the petitioner to sit for the examination at Zakir Hussain College, Paramakudi and since the petitioner submitted a letter of request to permit him to sit for the examination on 3-11-1999 alone in this respondent-College, he was permitted to sit for the examination on 3-11-1999 at Devakottai and for the other examinations he was directed to go to Zakir Hussain College at Paramakudi. The other allegations in the affidavit in support of the writ petition that a group of students used to constantly tease the students belonging to the petitioner's community that he brought the situation to the notice of this respondent and requested him to take action against the said students, are false. It is only the petitioner who assaulted them and misbehaved in the college campus. In the letter dt. 15-10-1999, the petitioner had admitted the allegations in the complaint lodged by this respondent before the police. The further allegation in the affidavit in support of the writ petition that the petitioner would not receive the registered notice on account of his having to report to the police everyday, cannot also be accepted as it is not as if the petitioner has to stay in the police station all throughout the day. The petitioner wilfully evaded receiving the notice and the same was returned to the college after due intimation. Knowing the contents of the said letter, the petitioner appeared before this respondent on 15-10-1999 and gave a letter admitting his misbehaviour and pleading for pardon. The petitioner cannot take advantage of his own conduct of wilfully evading the receipt of the notice. The removal of the petitioner from the College is valid, legal and proper and has been done for proper reasons after due deliberation and does not warrant any interference in the writ petition. If the petitioner is allowed to continue in the College, it will affect the smooth functioning of the college and also disturb the education of the co-students and normalcy cannot be maintained in the college. If the petitioner is allowed to continue in the College, it will affect the smooth functioning of the college and also disturb the education of the co-students and normalcy cannot be maintained in the college. The petitioner has not mended his ways in spite of several warnings on several occasions. Discipline and decorum cannot be maintained in the college if the petitioner is allowed to get away with the unruly behaviour. 6-7. During the course of the hearing, apparently, at the suggestion of this Court, the petitioner filed an affidavit expressing regret if he had unintentionally caused any disrespect to the College management. The petitioner further undertakes to maintain good behaviour for the rest of the course if he is permitted to rejoin the college and not to engage in any untoward behaviour. 8. There is an additional affidavit filed by the petitioner unconditionally apologising for the unfortunate incidents that had resulted in issuing Transfer Certificate. According to the respondent, the petitioner is guilty of a serious act of indiscipline and permitting him to come back into the institution on the apology will not be in the interest of discipline in the institution. Even otherwise, the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands as he suppressed material facts. 9. It has been held in B. Muthuvairam v. Principal, Pachaiyappa's College, Chennai, 1996 Writ LR 647 : by Kanakaraj, J. (as the learned Judge then was) that discipline is a hallmark of any educational institution, and is the most needed quality in any citizen of this country. 10. In Masanamuthuvel v. Cardamon Planters Association College, Rep. by its Principal, Pankajam Nagar, Bodinayakanur W.P. No. 8310 of 1998 Subramani, J. while dealing with that case of copying has referred to a number of decisions and standard words of Jurists and observed that the students, instead of devoting their precious time to character building and to pursue courses of study studiously and diligently in the pursuit of knowledge and excellence, dissipate their precious time and indulge in agitations and demonstrations. 11. A perusal of the records produced by either side in the present writ petition clearly shows that the petitioner is really not repentant. On the contrary he is in the habit of committing acts of indiscipline, tendering apologies by the dozen and flouting the undertakings only to be followed by further apologies and breaking of promises. 11. A perusal of the records produced by either side in the present writ petition clearly shows that the petitioner is really not repentant. On the contrary he is in the habit of committing acts of indiscipline, tendering apologies by the dozen and flouting the undertakings only to be followed by further apologies and breaking of promises. As early as in April, 1999, the petitioner had given a letter of undertaking to the Head of the Department (Commerce), stating that he would behave properly, bring books to the class room and in case he acted contrary to the undertakings, he would abide by the decision of the Head of the Department. This is followed by another undertaking by him on 20-8-1999 to the Principal stating that he would conduct himself properly in the class, that he would abide by the rules and regulations of the College, that he was expressing apology for the way he conducted himself during the election of the Secretary, that he would not, in future, give any room for any complaint against him. After these two recorded incidents, events on 29-9-1999 had taken place. The specific allegations made in the counter-affidavit of the first respondent that the petitioner's-mother met the Principal on 8-10-1999 and expressed regret for the behaviour of her son, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that on 15-10-1999, the petitioner met the Principal and gave a letter of apology once again. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the case of the petitioner that he had not been given a fair opportunity to defend himself, that there had been failure of principles of natural justice in the conduct of the enquiry and in the consequent punishment meted out to him. I have absolutely no doubt that the petitioner thrives on apologies. He gives them by the dozen without meaning anything. He has absolutely no intention to mend his ways. 12. As regards the lack of opportunity, it is well settled that in the matter of student indiscipline meticulous procedure ought not to be insisted upon. I have absolutely no doubt that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings, had access to the notice calling upon him to face the enquiry, as otherwise meeting the Principal on 15-10-1999 would not have happened. I have absolutely no doubt that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings, had access to the notice calling upon him to face the enquiry, as otherwise meeting the Principal on 15-10-1999 would not have happened. Admittedly, the petitioner did not attend the enquiry on 20-10-1999 and the authorities having no option other than to go ahead with the enquiry and on the material available, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the acts of indiscipline attributed to him. 13. The reading of the complaint, given by the first respondent to the petitioner, shows the petitioner in a very bad light. The petitioner had threatened the first respondent that if he dared to come out of the college, he would be murdered. He had attempted to manhandle the first respondent. It is, indeed a sad commentary on the state of things prevailing in educational institutions these days. As has been pointed in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K. S. Gandhi:- "Education nourishes intellectual advance to develop dignity of person without which there is neither intellectual excellence nor pursuit of happiness. Education thus kindless its flames for pursuit of excellence, enables and ennobles the young mind to sharpen his/her intellect more than reasoning than blind faith to reach intellectual heights and inculcate in him or her to strive for social equality and dignity of person." 14. A learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in GBS Omkar v. Shri Venkateswara University, 1981 AIR(SC) 163 has held that the standards of discipline and education presently obtaining in many Universities in our country leave a good lot to be desired. They are low and falling lower everyday, the fallout of these low standards of University education on liberal professions is proving to be nearly catastrophic. It is no wonder that some of our Universities have ceased to be centres of learning and have grown into battlefields for warring caste groups. 15. As already noticed, the apologies tendered by the writ petitioner are not worth the paper on which they are typed since the petitioner does not mean anything. 16. In these circumstances, I have to hold that there are absolutely no merits in the writ petition warranting any interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of failure of principles of natural justice or on any other ground. 17. 16. In these circumstances, I have to hold that there are absolutely no merits in the writ petition warranting any interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of failure of principles of natural justice or on any other ground. 17. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 25665/99 is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.