ORDER 1. The decision rendered in this writ shall also govern the disposal of other two connected writs being W.P. No. 857 of 2001 and W.P. No. 839 of 2001, as all the three writs are founded on more or less one cause of action and involve common issues of facts and law. 2. By filing this writ under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.4.2001 (Annexure P-9) by which he is rusticated from the Institute with immediate effect by the respondents. Facts that led to passing of the impugned order which eventually brought this writ to this Court need to be mentioned to appreciate the grievance urged by the petitioners. 3. All the three petitioners of these three writ petitions are students of fourth year (VIII Semester) of six years MCA degree course in International Institute of Professional Studies (for short IIPS) of Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore. It is an Institute where both boys and girls are receiving education. On 9.4.2001 some girls students studying in VIII Semester orally complained to Dr. A.K. Raman, Director of the Institute regarding circulation of two websites (most popular name in computer language) containing obscene pictures in the names of these girls together with obscene comments in English in the name of each girl on each picture. The girls requested for holding of an inquiry by the Director to avoid any publicity and embarrassing situation to all of them. Sensing the seriousness of the issue, as the same unfortunately got paper publicity in town the Director immediately asked Mr. Imroz Khan -a software engineer working in the Institute - to probe into the matter and find out its origin. The inquiry was then made by Mr. Khan which inter alia revealed that the entire episode began with sending of one e-mail message (Annexure R-6) which was sent from one internet account bearing T. No. 260598 belonging to one petitioner Vaibhav Jain's residence. It was also found that one such e-mail (Annexure R-7) message was also sent by another petitioner - Ravi Nawal to all students of VIII Semester. In these e-mails students were invited to visit these two websites. In this e-mail, the details of websites were mentioned. The authors of these two websites were directed to forthwith remove the websites. It was also found that one such e-mail (Annexure R-7) message was also sent by another petitioner - Ravi Nawal to all students of VIII Semester. In these e-mails students were invited to visit these two websites. In this e-mail, the details of websites were mentioned. The authors of these two websites were directed to forthwith remove the websites. Looking to the seriousness of the issue, the matter was also reported to police by the Institute. The offending computers of these petitioners from their respective houses and which were used for preparation of these offending web sites were seized by the police together with obscene pictures shown in those websites. A report was then submitted by Mr. Khan (Annexure R-1) to the Director of Institute, who in turn set up an inquiry committee immediately consisting of four senior professors to examine the issue to find out persons responsible for the entire episode and submit the report. The inquiry committee then summoned these three writ petitioners and one Mr. A Singh and recorded their statements in detail in question/answer form on the issue relating to the two offending web sites and their origin (Annexure R-3). The committee then considered the entire issue on the basis of the material, statements of the petitioners and submitted their report to Vice Chancellor (Annexure R-4). The Vice Chancellor, after taking into account all facts and the report submitted to him, passed the impugned order dated 19.4.2001 (Annexure P2/P9) holding these three petitioners to be prima facie responsible and architect of offending websites. So far as petitioner - Vaibhav Jain was concerned, he was rusticated from the Institute with immediate effect. Whereas, other two writ petitioners i.e. - Ravi Nawal and Rahul Shah were debarred from appearing in examination of the current session with immediate effect. It is against this order, all the three students (petitioners) have felt aggrieved and have filed these three individual writs. The respondents have filed the return together with entire documents including the obscene photos in sealed cover. In substance, in the return, the respondents have defended their action being in conformity with the ordinance and larger interest of the Institution. Heard Shri S. Bhargava, learned senior counsel with Smt. R. Bhargava and Shri Vivek Patwa, Shri Mehta and Shri V. Dalal, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri P. Bagadia, learned counsel for respondents. Heard Shri S. Bhargava, learned senior counsel with Smt. R. Bhargava and Shri Vivek Patwa, Shri Mehta and Shri V. Dalal, learned counsel for petitioners and Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned senior counsel with Shri P. Bagadia, learned counsel for respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners had basically one submission to urge while assailing the impugned action. According to learned counsel though, the incident occurred was not in good taste and was rather an unfortunate one, yet no opportunity much less proper and adequate was afforded to any of the petitioner to defend them before inflicting the impugned punishment. It was maintained that since no charge was framed, no written reply was taken and hence, it amounted to breach / violation of basic principle of natural justice. Learned counsel urged that the impugned action is also contrary to ordinance 14(2) because before inflicting the punishment, none of the petitioner were afforded any personal hearing. In substance, the submission was that all three writ petitioners are innocent and punished but for no fault of any of them. According to learned counsel, neither there was any material, nor occasion to involve any of these petitioners. It is essentially these submissions which were elaborated by all the three learned counsel for the petitioners in these writ petitions. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent defended the entire action to be legal, proper and in conformity with the ordinance. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record of the case, I find no merit in any of the writ and hence, all the three writ petitions must be dismissed resulting in upholding of the impugned orders passed against each of the petitioner. In my considered opinion, if one views the entire episode in the light of entire material brought on record by the committee, which resulted in taking impugned action against these petitioners, then one find absolutely no merit in any of the submission made by the petitioners though, looked attractive at first blush. Their (petitioners) involvement in the episode becomes apparent. What is principle of natural justice ? It is a phrase which is' so common in legal par-lane and is used to assail the action in almost every case. It is not defined, nor is capable of having one defined meaning for interpretation. Their (petitioners) involvement in the episode becomes apparent. What is principle of natural justice ? It is a phrase which is' so common in legal par-lane and is used to assail the action in almost every case. It is not defined, nor is capable of having one defined meaning for interpretation. It was so said by their Lordships of Supreme Court in one of its classic case of K.L Tripathi v. State Bank ( AIR 1984 SC 273 ) – "It is true that all actions against a party which involve penal or adverse consequences must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice but whether any particular principle of natural justice would be applicable to a particular situation or the question whether that has to be judged, in the light of facts and circumstances of each particular case. The basic requirement is that there must be fair play •in action and the decision must be arrived at in a just and objective manner with regard to the relevance of the materials and reasons. The rules of natural justice are flexible and cannot be put on any rigid formula. In order to sustain a complaint of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity of cross-examination it has to be established that prejudice has been caused to the party concerned by the procedure followed. Neither cross-examination nor the opportunity to lead evidence by the delinquent is an integral part of all quasi-judicial adjudications." 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid approach in mind, if one examines the entire episode, then it is clear that the impugned action was taken by the authorities of the Institute after following the principles of natural justice. It cannot be said even for the sake of argument that the decision was taken behind the back of petitioners. It is on record that all the three petitioners were asked to appear before the Committee, they were apprised of the episode, they were examined at length on the real and relevant issue. The petitioners were thus fully aware as to for what purpose they were summoned, and on what issue they were being questioned. None of the petitioners can possibly plead innocence about the nature of proceedings for which they were called. It was no where defined as to in what manner and in what way the inquiry has to be conducted. The petitioners were thus fully aware as to for what purpose they were summoned, and on what issue they were being questioned. None of the petitioners can possibly plead innocence about the nature of proceedings for which they were called. It was no where defined as to in what manner and in what way the inquiry has to be conducted. It all depended upon the circumstances, the nature of incident noticed, its possible consequences, if the action was not taken immediately and the material collected, which prima facie connected these three petitioners with the incident in question. It is not the case of any of the petitioner that the impugned action was taken on account of any mala fide attitude of any officer of the Institute. Indeed, no efforts were made by any of the petitioner to plead in the petition or to urge in the submission that due to some mala fide or revengeful attitude attributable to particular officer (Professor) this action was taken against these petitioners who were in no way connected with the incident. It has come on the record of inquiry and not denied by Shri Vaibhav Jain (petitioner of W.P. No. 878 of 2001) that the offending e-mail was sent from his residential telephone number (260598) and that obscene pictures with obscene comments meant for each girl student were recovered from his computers. The same was the case with Shri Ravi Nawal. As far as the case of third petitioner Mr. R. Shah was concerned, his computer also found to contain the same images (obscene pictures) which were recovered from the computers of other two petitioners. Thus, the involvement of these three students can not be disputed on the material collected from their own computers. In other words, there was enough material on the basis of which, one could draw the conclusion regarding involvement of these three writ petitioners. It was, in my opinion, more than sufficient to enable the Institute for taking action against this trio. 15. One of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned action was in breach of Ordinance 14(2) which contemplates giving of personal• hearing before the action is taken. I do not agree. This submission has no force. Again the words 'affording a personal hearing' are a flexible phrase and differ from case to case and facts involved in each case. I do not agree. This submission has no force. Again the words 'affording a personal hearing' are a flexible phrase and differ from case to case and facts involved in each case. As noted supra, the committee had called this trio personally and questioned them extensively on the matter. Can it not be said that it satisfied the requirement of personal hearing in the facts of this case and looking to the nature of inquiry and the issue involved? It was not expected of the authorities to have perused the rituals of domestic inquiry and call the delinquent on each and every stage. I, thus, find no substance in this submission too. The cases relied on by the leal11ed counsel for the petitioner to support this submission i.e. AIR 1962 SC 1110 and AIR 1970 SC 1039 are distinguishable on facts and in any event, once I hold that principle of natural justice were followed, the is be comes to an end against the petitioners. 16. Once I hold that petitioners were rightly found to be involved in the entire episode and were the architect of the offending website, they deserved to be punished suitably. Their innocence is not real. It is ostensible. What punishment was to be awarded to each of the petitioner was essentially a matter of discretion of the authorities. Looking to the major involvement of Vaibhav Jain, he was rightly rusticated from the Institute, whereas, for other two, the Institute decided to impose lesser punishment. In my opinion, no flaw can be noticed in the imposition of punishment as it was commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. 17. Submission of learned counsel who appeared for Vaibhav Jain, was that rustication of his client for an indefinite period was bad in law because under the ordinance it could at best be for a period of two years and not more. Leal11ed counsel for the respondent fairly conceded and made a statement that though the period in the impugned order so far as rustication of Vaibhav Jain was concerned was not mentioned but according to learned counsel, it was only for a period of two years from the date of impugned order. In view of this statement, made by the learned counsel for the respondent, no discussion is needed to examine this issue. In view of this statement, made by the learned counsel for the respondent, no discussion is needed to examine this issue. Even otherwise, when no period is mentioned, it has to be presumed that it is for a maximum period specified in the Ordinance i.e. two years. 18. To conclude, which I do with a sense of concern and rather regret, I find no merit in any of the writ. All the three writ petitions are dismissed resulting in upholding of the impugned orders passed against each of the petitioner. In other words, each petitioner has to suffer the punishment so inflicted individually upon each of them by their Institution. In my view, for a student, it is a punishment worst than a jail sentence which he has to suffer because he is found guilty. 19. I cannot, however, resists myself from making some observations which I feel may serve good in a time to come. This Court views with concern the menance pervading in the student community emanating from Educational Institutions. This incident has crossed the limits of decency, morality and humanity. The questions arise, where is the country's future heading to ? and who have to be blamed for this occurrence, Parents or teachers? Imposition of punishment in itself is no solution to the problem. It does not serve good to either though it is necessary to maintain the discipline in the Institution. A time has come to eradicate this evil missing out of use of this latest and new cyber technology and teach the students of their ill effects rather than to tell them their real use, though it is equally necessary. The immature and unpolluted minds of young and bright students in their studies, as I see from the reports filed by the petitioner in support of their case if not controlled at a proper time, such many more incidence in other shape are bound to occur. It is thus the moral responsibility of guru imparting the education to ensure that every student gets only the real knowledge of education so that his shishya becomes a model student of future to uplift not only the name of his guru but also the name of institution where he received the education and also his family. It is thus the moral responsibility of guru imparting the education to ensure that every student gets only the real knowledge of education so that his shishya becomes a model student of future to uplift not only the name of his guru but also the name of institution where he received the education and also his family. Equally is the duty of parents to ensure that their children are nurtured in most congenial and good atmosphere under their parental care without being influenced by western media impact on their immature brain. It is hoped that the institution so too the parents, will rise to the occasion and will make sincere endeavour to create such healthy atmosphere in the pious temple of education, as also in family in the larger interest of society as a whole. 20. With these observations, the petition fails and is dismissed. In view of dismissal of petition, all conditional interim orders passed pending Writ petitions are also vacated. It is made clear that in view of dismissal of writ as has already been observed while passing the interim orders as one of the condition, the respondents will not be required to pronounce the results of any of the writ petitioners as if they have not appeared in the examination.