Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 332 (MP)

Lalita Jharia v. State of M. P.

2009-03-16

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
ORDER Dipak Misra, J. --1. In this intra-Court appeal referred under section 2 (1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, the legal acceptability and sustainability of the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 11406 of 2008 is called in question. 2. The facts which are imperative to be stated are that the appellants are prosecuting their studies in Management and BHMSW courses respectively. They were residing in the Scheduled Tribes Girls Hostel, Wright Town, Jabalpur since 2005. They had a clean record and in fact were intolerant of some activities going on in the hostel which compelled them to submit a complaint to the authorities on which no action was taken. After expiry of one month, the second respondent, the Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Jabalpur passed an order on 24.8.2008 expelling the appellants from the hostel. The said order mentioned that it was passed on the basis of the directions issued by the Upper Collector and on the basis of certain statements made by the inmates of the hostel. After receipt of the order, the appellants submitted a representation to the Warden of the Hostel on 5.9.2008 and prayed for an enquiry to be made on the allegation made by the appellants. On the suggestion of the authorities, a fresh representation was made but to no avail. 3. As set forth, when the appellants came back to the hostel, they found that their room had been locked and on request being made, they were allowed to remain in the hostel till 12.9.2008. On 12.9.2008; as pleaded, their luggage was thrown out and they were directed to leave the hostel forthwith. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellants invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution forming the subject-matter of W.P. No. 11406 of 2008. During the pendency of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge by an order dated 26.9.2008 directed the Collector, Jabalpur to pass fresh order after hearing the petitioners and the respondent No. 3 the Warden of the Hostel. After the said direction was issued, the Collector, Jabalpur passed a fresh order and expressed the view that the decision to expel the students was correct. 4. After the said direction was issued, the Collector, Jabalpur passed a fresh order and expressed the view that the decision to expel the students was correct. 4. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that the order of explusion has been passed without giving an opportunity to the affected parties inasmuch as they were not afforded opportunity to cross-examine the inmates who had given statements against the appellants. It was also put forth that the statement of the appellants were not recorded and the copy of the inspection report was not supplied and hence the action was vitiated being violative of the principles of natural justice. It was also contended that the Collector has not passed the order keeping in view the Hostel Rules, 1966-67 (for short 'the Rules '). The aforesaid stand put forth by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners was resisted by the learned counsel for the respondents contending inter-alia that the petitioners had admitted the act of their indiscipline and the order passed by the Collector in pursuance of the interim order has not been challenged. It was the stand of the respondents that the principles of natural justice had been adequately followed. 5. The learned Single Judge took note ofthe fact that there are previous complaints against the appellants and they had admitted the same and tendered apology and assured that they would not repeat the said act but despite the said assurance, there had been complaints against them. He referred to Rule 17 (4) of the Rules, which lays down that expulsion can be directed when the presence of the student in the hostel is objectionable from the point of discipline or harmful effect to the other students of the hostel. The learned single Judge has expressed the view that elaborate enquiry was not imperative and the principles of natural justice have been complied with after interim order of this Court. Being of this view, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, has raised two fold contentions, namely, there had been violation of the principles of natural justice and that the Collector while passing the order on the basis of interim direction of this Court has not applied his mind. Being of this view, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 6. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the appellants, has raised two fold contentions, namely, there had been violation of the principles of natural justice and that the Collector while passing the order on the basis of interim direction of this Court has not applied his mind. In support of the first contention, the learned counsel submitted that under the Rules, the principles of natural justice have not been done away with and hence, it was obligatory to hold a full-fledged enquiry. To appreciate the said submission, we have' perused the Rules, Rule 17, on being translated into English, reads as under:- "17. Expulsion from Hostel -- The right to expel any student from the hostel will be that of the Hostel Samiti or District Collector, if-- (1) If the student after being admitted in the hostel has not obtained admission in a local educational institution within a period of one month. (2) On an enquiry, it is found that he has furnished wrong information relating to Scheduled Tribes or Scheduled Castes, or for any other reason, his admission in the hostel is contrary to the Admission Rules. (3) He is not attending the school regularly, or is not residing in the hostel. (4) His presence in the hostel is objectionable from the point of discipline or harmful effect to other student of the hostel. 7. After the remand, as is manifest from Annexure A-6 on 3.10.2008, the Collector has passed fresh order. On scrutiny of the same, it transpires that the Collector has heard the appellants. The learned Single Judge has dealt with this facet in para 11 of the order dated 19.12.2008, which we think it apposite to reproduce : "11. The objection relating to violation of the principle of natural justice also loses relevance since this Court by order dated 26.9.2008 directed the Collector to consider the petitioners' grievance and pass fresh order after hearing the petitioners and the respondent No.3. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Collector. The order-sheet of the Collector dated 1.10.2008 indicated that the Collector had heard the petitioners in the open Court and recorded their statements. He had also heard the Superintendent of the hostel Smt.Anusiya Patel. Thereafter, the matter was taken up by the Collector. The order-sheet of the Collector dated 1.10.2008 indicated that the Collector had heard the petitioners in the open Court and recorded their statements. He had also heard the Superintendent of the hostel Smt.Anusiya Patel. He had considered the enquiry/inspection report dated 26.7.2008 and also heard Smt. Shivani Gupta who had Conducted the inspection on 26.7.2008 in the presence of all. He had directed the Superintendent of the hostel to produce the girl students of the hostel who had made complaints against the petitioners and accordingly those girl students had appeared before the Collector on 3.10.2008. The statements of some of them were recorded and they were heard in the presence of all. The Collector after hearing all concerned persons including the petitioners in the open Court and analyzing the documents, facts and arguments independently reached to the conclusion that the expulsion of the petitioner is correct and since the petitioners were expelled by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development dated 26.8.2008, therefore, he maintained the order of expulsion. The proceedings taken up before the Collector in pursuance to the direction of this Court indicate that even assuming that there was some lacuna in the process followed at the time of passing of the order dated 26.8.2008 the same was cured when the Collector considered the matter on the direction of this Court and passed the order dated 3.10.2008." In our considered opinion, in a case of this nature, elaborate enquiry is not necessitous. A categorical finding has been reached after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners that the order of expulsion is correct. The submission of Mr. Jain is that the Collector has not expressed his independent opinion that if the appellants stay in the hostel, it will be objectionable from the point of discipline or harmful effect to other students of the hostel. Mere non-recording of the same, we are inclined to think, will not vitiate the order. It is the real essence of the order to be seen, not the form of it. The substance must govern the field. The submission of Mr. Jain that the appellants should have been allowed to cross-examine the complainants does not impress us. Mere non-recording of the same, we are inclined to think, will not vitiate the order. It is the real essence of the order to be seen, not the form of it. The substance must govern the field. The submission of Mr. Jain that the appellants should have been allowed to cross-examine the complainants does not impress us. As we have already held that in a case of this nature, elaborate enquiry like any other types of proceedings is not warranted, a summary enquiry would meet the ends of justice and satisfy the compliance of the principle of natural justice. 8. In view of our aforesaid analysis, we perceive no merit in this writ appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, without any order as to costs.