Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 211 (GAU)

Pratima Kumari Devi v. State of Assam

2007-03-14

AMITAVA ROY

body2007
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The order dated 13.09.2006 of the Principal of the Nowgaon Law College, Nagaon (hereafter for short referred to as the 'College'), rusticating the petitioner for a period of 6 years with effect from that date, forms the subject matter of challenge in the instant proceeding. The petitioner at the relevant time was a final year student of the LLB course of the College. As during the pendency of the present petition the final LLB examination under the aegis of the Gauhati University (hereafter for short referred to as the 'University'), was slated to commence from 9th of March, 2007, the petitioner approached this Court with M.C. No. 691/2007 to permit her, the impugned order notwithstanding, to complete the necessary formalities in that regard and to take the examination as a special case, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court by order dated 05.03.2007, acceded to the prayer. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the final LLB examination, the results whereof, had already been declared in the same year. However, her results for the pendency of the present proceedings have been withheld. 2. I have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. P. Kataki, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam and Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned Standing counsel, for the University. Mr. A.C. Borbora, Senior Advocate for the Governing Body of the College, Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned Counsel for the Principal of the College and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Counsel for the Nowgaon Law College Students Union, are also heard. 3. The pleaded versions of the parties ought to be taken note of at the outset. The petitioner's case is that the LLB course contains two practical papers for the 2nd and 3rd year students and the Principal of the College, as well as one Shri Sarat Khound, lecturer thereof, are in-charge of guiding the students in connection therewith. Without reference to any date or time in the petition, she has referred to two episodes of indecent, obscene and vulgar acts of the Principal involving her. According to her, due to intervention of her friends named in the petition, the Principal, respondent No. 4, apologized for his conduct. The Nowgaon Law College Students Union (for short referred to as the 'Union'), however, as the petitioner has averred, refused to accept her complaint in this regard. According to her, due to intervention of her friends named in the petition, the Principal, respondent No. 4, apologized for his conduct. The Nowgaon Law College Students Union (for short referred to as the 'Union'), however, as the petitioner has averred, refused to accept her complaint in this regard. The petitioner has alleged that on 08.09.2006 at the instance of the Union the respondent No. 4 issued a show cause notice accusing her of launching false and fabricated propaganda against him imputing immoral behaviour for which his reputation had been adversely affected. A charge that she had abused the respondent No. 4 over telephone in uncivilized and unparliamentary language in the midnight of 27.08.2006, was. also levelled against her. The petitioner submitted her reply in substance reiterating her indictments against the Principal, respondent No. 4, expressing that thereby she had been subjected to extreme mental torture. She also admitted to have made the phone call out of desperation and unbearable distress. She further alleged that the Vice President of the Union had forcibly taken her signature in a letter on 08.09.2006. By the impugned order, thereafter the petitioner was expelled from the College for a period of six years, recording that her reply to the show cause notice was considered to be unsatisfactory. A copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the Controller of Examination, Gauhati University. 4. On the same date the petitioner lodged an FIR with Officer-in-charge, Nagaon Sadar Police Station, on which Nagaon P.S. Case No. 573/200 under 376/511 IPC was registered. The petitioner has averred that though the respondent No. 4, subsequent thereto, approached this Court with B.A. No. 2386/2006, praying for pre arrest bail, by order dated 30.10.2006, he was directed to surrender before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon. The petitioner also filed complaints before the Assam Human Rights Commission as well as Assam State Commission for women apprising the two statutory bodies of the above events. 5. The Registrar of the University, respondent No. 2, in his affidavit, while affirming the fact that a copy of the impugned order had been forwarded to the Controller of Examination, Gauhati University, has stated that the University as such has no control over the administration of the affairs of the College. 6. The respondent No. 3, have chosen not to file any affidavit. 7. 6. The respondent No. 3, have chosen not to file any affidavit. 7. The respondent No. 4, in his counter, while specifically denying the allegations heaped on him by the petitioner, questioned her bonafide, contending that this act of vilifying him is at the instance and instigation of vested quarters. Denying that there had been any occasion for him to apologize, for his conduct as claimed, the answering respondent maintained that the petitioner had never disclosed these incidents to any body including the Union in the recent part. The deponent in turn, alleged that the unethical and unchaste ways of the petitioner defiled the academic atmosphere of the College for which the students thereof, resorted to agitation and insisted on him to take disciplinary action against her. In retaliation, therefore the petitioner in collusion with others, who are inclined to see the respondent ousted from the College, framed up the allegations of his sleazy conduct towards her and other female students of the College. That the insinuations against him are apparently false and concocted is obvious from the spontaneous resentment of the students in general and the Union in particular against such baseless and defamatory propaganda. Claiming that his career and social life has been throughout unblemished, the answering respondent has maintained that the disciplinary action was unavoidably warranted in order to stem tine worsening situation in the institution campus and to enforce academic discipline ana sanctity. 8. The respondent No. 5, the Students Union has in clear terms denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner against the respondent No. 4 and has condemned the move to be conspiratorial in order to further the personal interest of a chosen few. The Union denied to have received any complaint from the petitioner involving the Principal. It admitted to have submitted a representation on behalf of the 180 students of the College against the immoral activities of the petitioner demanding exemplary disciplinary action against her. The respondent Union dismissed the allegations made in the FIR by the petitioner as false and unfounded. The Union denied to have received any complaint from the petitioner involving the Principal. It admitted to have submitted a representation on behalf of the 180 students of the College against the immoral activities of the petitioner demanding exemplary disciplinary action against her. The respondent Union dismissed the allegations made in the FIR by the petitioner as false and unfounded. While, endorsing the plea of the respondent No. 4 that the petitioner's conduct has been polluting the academic atmosphere of the College, the Union averred that the students have not only strongly reacted to the wild allegations made by her involving the Principal and other girl students of the College, three of them have lodged a complaint on the basis of which Nagaon PS Case No. 768/06 under Section 120B/500/506/34 of the IPC had been registered in which on the completion of the investigation a charge sheet has been submitted on the above provisions of law against the petitioner and one Shri Dildar Hussain. The respondent Union has supported the impugned action contending it to be indispensable to maintain an unsullied and solemn academic ambience of the institution. 9. Mr. Choudhury, has urged that having regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner and the impugned order, the Principal in the facts and circumstances of the case, has acted as the accuser, prosecutor and the judge rolled into one and on that ground alone the decision being afflicted by the transgression of the fundamental principle of fairness in action, is liable to be adjudged illegal, null and void. 10. Mr. Chakraborty, for the University without offering any comment on the merit of the impugned order has apprised this Court that the petitioner's results have been withheld in view of her expulsion from the college and the pendency of the instant proceeding. 11. Mr. Borbora, Senior Advocate for the Governing Body of the College endorsed the impugned decision to be warranted in the interest of the reputation and credibility of the College. 12. Mr. Saikia, however, has emphatically urged that not only the allegations levelled against the respondent No. 4 are outrightly false, as the petitioner's dubious ways profaned the otherwise solemn and orderly environment of the institution, the impugned action judged in that perspective is unassailable in greater public interest. 12. Mr. Saikia, however, has emphatically urged that not only the allegations levelled against the respondent No. 4 are outrightly false, as the petitioner's dubious ways profaned the otherwise solemn and orderly environment of the institution, the impugned action judged in that perspective is unassailable in greater public interest. The learned Counsel was particularly critical about the petitioner's move to denigrate and defame the principal by levelling wild and false accusations against him in the FIR designedly made only after the impugned order of expulsion was passed. According to him, the petitioner was not entitled to any equitable consideration of this Court, the order assailed having been passed after affording due opportunity to her and in the interest of the institution in particular as well as the students in general. 13. Mr. Mahanta, sought to sustain the impugned decision on the ground of preserving profound and sacrosanct ambience of the College. 14. Having regard to the arguments advanced, the present scope of scrutiny in the instant proceeding is essentially limited to determine as to whether the respondent No. 4's decision as the Principal of the College, having regard to the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, is vitiated by an infringement of the fundamental essentiality of fairness in institutional action as envisaged in law. For a ready reference the contents of the show cause notice are extracted hereinbelow: (1) Nowgaon Law College Students Union has submitted in black and white that you have been launching false and fabricated propaganda with vested interest and planned manner raising the allegation of alleged immoral behaviour shown by Principal. Nowgaon Law College to you. By this ill convinced behaviour and action you have not only lowered the reputation and honour of Principal Nowgaon Law College but also spread rumour that most of the girls students keep identical relationship with the Principal and other teachers scaring the image and reputation of the College and the girls student of the College. (2) You have broken the decorum and decency of Principal-student relation by threatening Principal bv phone at 12.15 midnight of 27.08.2006 with uncivilized and unparliamentary sentences proving your wild behaviour, in subordination, barbarism and complete dishonour to Principal violating the accepted norms. Under the above reasons as Nowgaon Law College Students Union has submitted in black and white to rusticate you stating stipulated time frame. Under the above reasons as Nowgaon Law College Students Union has submitted in black and white to rusticate you stating stipulated time frame. In order to avoid the further agitation of Students Union and to maintain law and order you are asked to submit written reply the show cause within 1 p.m. of 9.9.06 p.m. positively. (Emphasis supplied) 15. A plain reading of the extract as above, manifests that the Principal has been the center figure of the imputations for which according to him, not only his reputation and esteem in the society was at stake but also the girls students of the student of the institution had been defamed and the College was brought to disrepute. Having regard to the charges, it is apparent that the respondent No. 4 was directly and vitally interested in the outcome of the process initiated on the basis of the show cause notice. The impugned order dated 13.09.2006 reflects consideration by him of the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and his conclusion that the same was unsatisfactory. The petitioner by the said order was expelled from the College for a period of six years. The respondent No. 4, considering the role discharged by him in the matter can thus be said to have acted as the accuser, prosecutor and the judge of his own cause. 16. The learned Counsel for the respondents have not been able to draw the attention of this Court to any Rules or guidelines in the matter of disciplinary action of this kind involved in academic institution, either obviating the necessity of observance of the principles of natural justice in procedure or authorizing an administrative head to conduct the same, though inextricably entwined in the charge being enquired into. Having regard to the prejudicial consequences likely to follow in such matters, if the charge against the student is proved, it defies logic to comprehend that procedural fairness in connection therewith would be unnecessary or an useless formality. The seriousness of the charges against the petitioner notwithstanding, the above vitiating factor in the opinion of this Court, has invalidated the impugned order. The respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the College by associating himself with the process decided his own cause and, therefore, on the touchtone of fairness in action the impugned decision is militative of the maxim nemo judex in causa sua. The respondent No. 4 as the Principal of the College by associating himself with the process decided his own cause and, therefore, on the touchtone of fairness in action the impugned decision is militative of the maxim nemo judex in causa sua. The respondents have neither pleaded nor endeavoured to establish before this Court that the Principal of the College was the only authority to initiate or administer the exercise or that there was no other authority in the institution to whom the responsibility could have been entrusted. No other pressing compelling or persuasive fact situation has also been brought on record or referred to justify the exclusive association of the respondent No. 4 with the process impugned. 17. In the above view of the matter, the order assailed, cannot be sustained in law is thus set aside. While recording this finding this Court is fully conscious of the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner and it is made clear that the interference with the impugned order is by no means an index of this Court's opinion on the authenticity, correctness or otherwise thereof. In other words, this decision notwithstanding, it would be open for the concerned authorities if advised, to take appropriate action on the said charges, as permissible in law. This, however, should not be construed to be a direction to the respondents to chart any particular course of action and it would be solely within their discretion to decide the same. The petition thus stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs. Petition allowed.