Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 99 (KER)

Sooraj Gemini v. State of Kerala

2002-02-11

K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR

body2002
Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner is a student in Government College, Kariavattom. The petitioner made a complaint, Exhibit P2, against one among the teachers. Petitioner apprehended danger as well. The petitioner approached this Court and sought for police protection. This Court granted police protection, as is revealed by Exhibit P6. In the meantime, an Enquiry Committee was constituted as is revealed by Ext. P4 "based on the complaints received from the teachers" against the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to appear for an enquiry to be conducted on 5.12.2001 by the Enquiry Committee. It seems that the petitioner had represented before the Committee, as is revealed by Ext. P8, as follows :- "……….. I have not been served with any of the complaints alleged to have been made against me and the copy of the memo of charges. I submit that without getting the copy of the complaints and the copy of the memo of charges, I am in a dark with regard to the purpose of the enquiry and therefore I cannot participate in the enquiry". This has been received by the Committee on 5.12.2001, as is revealed from the acknowledgment on Exhibit P8. Thereupon Ext. P7 Communication was issued on him, intimating that the enquiry has been adjourned to 20.12.2001. Petitioner responded to Ext. P7 by Exhibit P9 repeating his earlier submission about the non-furnishing of the details which forms part the subject matter of the enquiry. Finally, the petitioner is now served with Ext. P10, which reads as follows :- "The meeting of the College council held on 2.1.2002 discussed in detail the report of Enquiry conducted by the Committee constituted by the Principal dated 23.11.2001 on the allegations raised against Sooraj Gemini, Admission No. 279 Class No.2, III B. Sc. Bio-Chemistry student of this College unanimously arrived at the conclusion that Sooraj Gemini is guilty of the charges and that he be dismissed from the College". Accordingly Sooraj Gemini, Admission No. 279 Class No. 2 III B.Sc. Bio-chemistry student of this college is forthwith dismissed from the college." Ext. P10 reveals that the College Counsil held a discussion on the report of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner "On the allegations raised against Sooraj Gemini, Admission No. 279, Class No. 2, III B.Sc. Bio Chemistry" (The petitioner). Ext. Bio-chemistry student of this college is forthwith dismissed from the college." Ext. P10 reveals that the College Counsil held a discussion on the report of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner "On the allegations raised against Sooraj Gemini, Admission No. 279, Class No. 2, III B.Sc. Bio Chemistry" (The petitioner). Ext. P10 further discloses that the committee had arrived at a unanimous conclusion that "Sooraj Gemini is guilty of the charges and that he be dismissed from the College.".Thus, the petitioner is dismissed from the College based on certain allegations and stated to be finding guilty of the charges. 2. This order is under challenge contending that eventhough the salient features regarding the procedures to be followed in a disciplinary action against a Government servant or any other public servant need not be followed in academic matters, the affected person shall be made known of the accusation at least in minimum words, the petitioner submits. Any enquiry or finding without being made known of the accusation at least in minimum words is totally arbitrary and unreasonable. It cannot be then taken that even the bare minimum extent of natural justice to reflect a fair action is satisfied. 3. It is submitted by the Government Pleader that this is only an academic matter and, therefore, this Court shall not interfere with. Certainly the Government Pleader is perfectly justified in his submission that in the matter of academic discipline this Court shall not interfere. 4. But, the issue will have a different face when an incumbent is expelled from a college based on certain allegations and based on the finding that the charges have been proved, as is now done in Ext. P10. Even in academic matters though a specific charge-sheet is not necessary nor a copy of the enquiry report need be furnished, even then the incumbent is to be made known as to whate are the complaints alleged against him and what are the allegations leveled against him, so that he can meet it appropriately. One should know for what reason he is to face expulsion. In spite of the specific submission in Exhibits P8 and P9, he had never been informed of it. Naturally it can be easily concluded that the petitioner was put in dark with respect to the subject matter of the enquiry which resulted in adverse order expelling him from the College as per Ext. P10. In spite of the specific submission in Exhibits P8 and P9, he had never been informed of it. Naturally it can be easily concluded that the petitioner was put in dark with respect to the subject matter of the enquiry which resulted in adverse order expelling him from the College as per Ext. P10. In such circumstances, it has to be held that Ext. P10 is extremely arbitrary and unreasonable reflecting no fairness in action. Accordingly it is quashed, making it clear that the appropriate committee or the concerned Principal will be entitled to proceed with the complaint received against the petitioner after giving a gist of the same to the petitioner. The Original Petition is allowed.