Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 536 (GUJ)

KOLLI MADHAV SAIRAM REDDY v. UNION OF INDIA

2010-10-29

K.M.THAKER, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2010
JUDGMENT Present appeal, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is directed against the order dated 25.03.2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition filed against the report (of January 2010) submitted by the Institute Level Anti-Ragging Committee {hereinafter referred to as the ILARC or the Committee } and is also directed against the order - circular dated 01.02.2010 rusticating the petitioner (and other 5 students who have not challenged the order) from pursuing the studies for 2 semesters passed by the respondent No.2-institute. The appellant (alongwith other 5 students) has been also debarred from representing the institute in any regional, national or international tournaments, etc. and from training and placement programmes. 1.1 The impugned action by the respondent No.2-institute is said to have been taken pursuant to the proceedings before the ILARC in relation to an incidence of ragging caused by certain senior students (which reportedly included the appellant) of the respondent No.2-institute. 1.2 By virtue of the very same circular/order dated 01.02.2010 the appellant has been permitted to again get registered for and to re-start, his studies and pursue it further, from the academic year 2010-2011 (Spring/Even semester-2011). 2. At this stage, it deserves to be mentioned that during the hearing before us, it was submitted that the other 5 students who also have been rusticated accepted the decision. 3. It appears from the impugned order by the learned Single Judge that the appellant had, at one stage, thought of withdrawing the petition but subsequently the appellant appears to have preferred to pursue the petition. In this context, the learned Single Judge has noted, in para 2 of the order, as follows:- 2. This petition was heard at length in the morning and Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned advocate has made his submission. He requested the Court to adjourn the matter to seek instruction for withdrawal of the petition. The matter is, therefore, kept at 2.30 p.m. At 2.30 p.m., Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate has made his submission...... 4. From the impugned order, it appears that the appellant had challenged the said decision and the action of the respondents on two grounds raised during the hearing before the learned Single Judge viz. The matter is, therefore, kept at 2.30 p.m. At 2.30 p.m., Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate has made his submission...... 4. From the impugned order, it appears that the appellant had challenged the said decision and the action of the respondents on two grounds raised during the hearing before the learned Single Judge viz. (a) the constitution of the Committee was unlawful inasmuch as the Committee was not constituted as per the regulations, and (b) the report submitted by the ILARC and the order are in violation of principle of natural justice. After hearing the appellant and upon taking into account the material available on record, the learned Single Judge has rejected the petition by the impugned order dated 25.03.2010. Hence, present appeal. 5. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate, has appeared for the appellant-petitioner. Mr. S.N.Shelat, learned senior counsel, with Mrs. V.D.Nanavati, learned advocate, has appeared for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties. We have also perused the record. In view of the appellant's request and with the consent of contesting opponents, the appeal is heard finally. Mrs. V.D.Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 has waived notice of admission.5.1 Mr. Pandya, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that the constitution of the ILARC is not in consonance with the regulations dated 01.07.2009 framed and issued by AICTE which are binding to the institute. He also made reference of the Government Resolution dated 14.07.2009 constituting the Committees for prevention of ragging. Mr. Pandya also submitted that the constitution of the ILARC not being in consonance with the AICTE regulations, the ILARC was not competent to take-up any proceedings or to make recommendations hence the impugned decision and order are rendered illegal and void. He further submitted that the impugned order dated 01.02.2010 is in stark violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the order has been passed without serving show cause notice hence it deserves to be set aside. He also relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of University of Kerala vs. Council of Principals of College of Kerala (Civil Appeal) whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed that the recommendations regarding the institute Level Anti-Ragging Committee (recommendation No.5.18) made by the Raghavan Committee should be implemented. Except this, any other submission has not been made. 5.2 Per contra, Mr. Except this, any other submission has not been made. 5.2 Per contra, Mr. Shelat, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3, has submitted that the institute is not governed by AICTE directives. He has also submitted that the respondent No.2-institute has constituted the ILARC comprising 6 members which complies the directive to constitute an institute level committee and the ILARC, after taking into consideration the material on record (e.g. the photographs of the incidence and the statements made by the students, including the appellant) unanimously came to the conclusion about the appellant's involvement in the incidence and about the punishment. He also submitted that in view of the appellant's statement, which is in nature of admission about the incidence and his involvement therein, there is no scope for such contentions and/or they do not survive. He also submitted that the appellant was informed about the statements by other students and thereafter his statement was recorded, hence there is no substance in the allegation about violation of principle of natural justice. He submitted that in such type of cases a formal inquiry on the lines of an investigation akin to a trial is not warranted. 5.3 He also referred to the photographs obtaining on the record of present Appeal (pages 59 to 79 of the paper book of L.P.A.) and submitted that the said photographs are the evidence of the incidence and about the appellant's involvement, and any other or further evidence was not necessary. In support of his submission, he relied upon the judgment by the learned Single Judge in the case between Principal, Sardar Patel High School, Deesa & Anr. v. Chunibhai Nathubhai Raval [ 1993(1) GLR 642 ] and so as to support his submission that AICTE's directives are not binding to the respondent No.2-institute he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Bharathidarsan University & Anr. v. All India Council for Technical Education & Anr. [ AIR 2001 SC 2861 ]. 6. So as to appreciate the chronology of the proceedings, we may refer to para 3 to 7 of the reply affidavit made by the Registrar of the respondent No.2-institute which also explains the procedure followed by the ILARC against which any counter has not been filed. 3. [ AIR 2001 SC 2861 ]. 6. So as to appreciate the chronology of the proceedings, we may refer to para 3 to 7 of the reply affidavit made by the Registrar of the respondent No.2-institute which also explains the procedure followed by the ILARC against which any counter has not been filed. 3. I state that the incidence of ragging of the first year students of the institute by the senior students of the Institute was reported on 23-1-2010, Saturday evening to the Institute by public. The incidence occurred in the public garden Sarojini Naidu Udhyan , opposite to the institute. Upon receiving the information, two hostel wardens and five hostel supervisors rushed to the spot. Some of the students escaped from the garden by jumping over the fence/wall of the garden. The ILARC has carried out investigation in the matter after getting the investigation report by the Hostel Disciplinary Committee and Anti-Ragging Squad. 4. xxx xxx xxx. 5. I further state that the meeting of ILARC was called on 24/01/2010 at the hostel conference room in the afternoon at 4.00 p.m. and in the evening at 6.00 p.m. on 25/01/2010. The petitioner and the senior students were identified by junior students freshers as participated in the ragging. The petitioner was called before the Committee on 25/01/2010. The petitioner was made aware that ILARC was investigating and inquiring into the incidence of ragging that occurred on 23/01/2010 in the public garden where he was present. The petitioner was requested to offer his statement as to what happened in the evening on that day. I submit that first year students had mentioned that the petitioner and other students of second year were present. I submit that ............... ANNEXURE-R-II (Colly.) are copies of the statements. 6. I submit that the petitioner admitted that he was present at the incidence of ragging in the evening of 23/01/2010 at the garden. The petitioner had taken photographs. Annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-R-III are copies of statement by the under taking along with hostel admission form.7. The petitioner has admitted that he had met the students prior to calling them for ragging. The petitioner was identified and his photograph was also produced before the committee. There are several photographs of the incidence of ragging produced before the Investigating Committee....... The petitioner has admitted that he had met the students prior to calling them for ragging. The petitioner was identified and his photograph was also produced before the committee. There are several photographs of the incidence of ragging produced before the Investigating Committee....... 6.1 In this context, we may, at this stage, also refer to the relevant part of the report of ILARC pursuant to which the order/circular dated 01.02.2010 was passed. PREAMBLE:An incidence of ragging of first year students by the senior students of the institute was reported by the public on 23-1-2010, ...........xxx xxx xxx The Institute Level Anti Ragging Committee (ILARC) meeting was called at 4:00 pm on 24-1-2010 and at 6:00 pm on 25-1-2010 to study the report of HDC and to interrogate the identified students who were involved in the incidence. Annexure IV contains the proceedings of the ILARC on 24-1-2010 and 25-1-2010 including statements of first year students and senior students obtained by the committee along with the meeting attendance. It also contains statements of hostel supervisors and wardens who rushed to the spot of the incidence. Intimation of the incidence sent to the police authorities by the institute is also placed at annexure IV.xxx xxx xxx. 6.2 On the basis of the statements of the students and the material (the photographs of the incidence were submitted to the Committee by the students) received during the inquiry, the ILARC unanimously found that the appellant, along with other students was involved in causing the incidence.6.3 Some of the relevant aspects recorded by the ILARC in its report are, (1) due to strict vigil on campus, the group decided to meet outside the campus, (2) a meeting between third year and second year students from A.P. was called on 20.01.2010 night at Hostel-9 terrace during which planning for the interaction was carried out, (3) the interaction between first year and senior students took place on 21.01.2010 and 23.01.2010 during evening hours in Sarojini Naidu Udhyan, and (4) the first year students were called on the pretext of get together.6.4 Having regard to the material before it, the ILARC considered it appropriate to bifurcate the involvement of the senior students in three major categories viz. (i) major involvement, (ii) supporting involvement, and (iii) bystanders. (i) major involvement, (ii) supporting involvement, and (iii) bystanders. So far as the petitioner is concerned, after consideration of the relevant aspects, the Committee found that his involvement would fall within the purview of first category (i.e. major involvement). The ILARC also noticed that besides the appellant, other 5 students also would be covered within the purview of first category. Therefore, the ILARC recommended similar punishment in respect of all 6 students including the petitioner and different punishments for other students (about 25 students) in 2nd and 3rd categories. Thereafter, the Dean (Academic) passed the order dated 01.02.2010 which was challenged before the learned Single Judge by way of petition which came to be rejected by the impugned order. 7. We have also noticed that in the institute the students are required to sign an undertaking at the time of admission declaring that they would not indulge into any act of ragging. The appellant had also signed such undertaking, which reads thus:- UNDERTAKING AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ANTI-RAGGING VERDICT BY THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURTI, Mr. K. Madhav Sai Ram Reddy, Adm No.: U07PR814 Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, student of Sardar Vallabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat do hereby undertake the following with respect to above subject. 1. That I have read and understood the directives of the Honourable Supreme Court of India on anti-ragging and the measures proposed to be taken in the above reference. 2. That I understand the meaning of Ragging and know that the ragging in any form is a punishable offence and the same is banned by the Court of Law. 3. That I have not been found or charged for my involvement in any kind of ragging in the past. However, I undertake to face disciplinary action/legal proceedings including expulsion from the Institute if the above statement is found to be untrue or the facts are concerned, at any stage in future. 4. That I shall not resort to ragging in any from at any place and shall abide by the rules/laws prescribed by the Courts, Govt. of India and the Institute authorities for the purpose from time to time. 7.1 The appellant, despite being aware about the consequences and about the actions which may ensue in the event of involvement in the act of ragging and despite his undertaking, planned and participated in the incidence. of India and the Institute authorities for the purpose from time to time. 7.1 The appellant, despite being aware about the consequences and about the actions which may ensue in the event of involvement in the act of ragging and despite his undertaking, planned and participated in the incidence. 7.2 It is noticed, on the perusal of the report and the order dated 01.02.2010 that the report and consequently the decision, are mainly and substantially based on the statements of the students, including the statement/s by the appellant. 7.3 Therefore, it would be appropriate at this stage, to take into account the statement made by the appellant and the other students (which are placed on record at pages 47 to 53). The appellant's statement reads thus:- To Dean,Student WelfareSir,I, K. Madhav Sai Ram Reddy (B.Tech III) Mechanical went to the Hostel No.9 on Wednesday (20-01-10) to attend a meeting on the Terrace of the Hostel, I call by our batchmates. We, all discussed and called up the second yearites to convey the message we have discussed i.e. All of us told them to do Ragging and even we told them not to beat anyone. Even we told about the failures and asked them to interact with them and take care of them. We even asked about the list of students who are very poor. Sincerely, Sd/-K.Madhav Sai Ram Reddy. I got a call from our batchmates intimating that there is a get together (21-01-10 at 5:30 p.m.) and I went for it with a Camera. I was outside there. I went and have taken one student outside and told him how to study and all and after an Hour I came back and I saw sricrivas beating Vasu and I told him to stop all those activities and I told not to repeat this activities again. I went off by taking some photographs of mine and batchmates. Sd/-Madhav Sai Ram Reddy.Saturday.I got a call from pavan when I was at home intimating that within 15 min. get together. I came and some of my seniors were there, we discussed and told them about the freshers. 7.4 The statements by other students read thus:-(1) Mr. Kadipikonda Vijendhai and Ms. Seelsboina Vamsi Satyanary, - We were on the part on Saturday and another day, on Saturday we were asked to act like TV actor. get together. I came and some of my seniors were there, we discussed and told them about the freshers. 7.4 The statements by other students read thus:-(1) Mr. Kadipikonda Vijendhai and Ms. Seelsboina Vamsi Satyanary, - We were on the part on Saturday and another day, on Saturday we were asked to act like TV actor. They asked us to wear formal dress and have our hair to be small. They asked us to tell our introduction. They said that freshers would be given in one week. Till that we have wear formal dress without long hair, beard and wish them wherever we see them. They asked me to count the length of part with my legs. They said every one should know the detail of all first years like full name, father's name, occupation, date of birth, branch, etc. They made me to tear a paper into small pieces and find out a word from the pieces. They asked me to find how many seniors are herein in second, third and final year. All these were done in presence of many people. I am naming some of the seniors whom I know Madhav, Bhavya, Ankkit, Bhavini, Sahiti, Tulsiram, Susheel, Sindhiya, Sagar. (2) Mr. T.Shiva Karthik - Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to explain everything. Sir, I actually come from my hometown on Tuesday as my father was having a health problem. On Wednesday we were called by the IIIrd yearites for a get together on the hostel of terrate. There we were told by our seniors that all the seniors have to interact with the juniors. Then the next day's evening I was informed by one of my friend that a get together was organized by Madhav of IIIrd year. So I have gone there. There I have done nothing but just took the introduction with the juniors. I accept that some of my friends did ragging but as I did not feel that any of the juniors was hurt so I did not stop them. I am sorry for that. I might have come in a photo where they were ragging but I am least involved in it. I was just walking from one junior to another. I was also not there for a long time. I was not just present for ? hr. to 45 min. I am sorry for that. I might have come in a photo where they were ragging but I am least involved in it. I was just walking from one junior to another. I was also not there for a long time. I was not just present for ? hr. to 45 min. I come back as there was a BH-B(B) matchOn Saturday I was the last person to go to the park there. I saw that our batch girls came and I don't have nice contacts with them. I immediately returned back. I was there for 15-30 min. During that time some of our seniors were telling the juniors that freshers would be given a week.Thanking you so much, Sir.Sudarshan IIIrd year Yours sincerelyMadhav IIIrd yearOdanna IInd year sd/-T. Shiva Karthik. (3) I P.S.Karthik - I am P.S.Karthik, studying in electrical engineering III year. Sir I was told by Madhav that there is get together in the park. I really do not know that that ragging was going on in the part. I entered the park by 6-30 p.m. and returned by 7-10 p.m. Madhav was taking pictures of mine, which I tried to avoid. I was not able to oppose him, as I do not have nice terms with him. I admit that I made a mistake by not stopping the ragging going on by Madhav and the other members (II year). I am really sorry for the mistake that I have done. I will never encourage any means of ragging activity in and outside our college Sir.So please give me a chance to rectify my mistake. Sir, I did not attend the get-to-gather on Wednesday and Saturday.Thanking you Sir,Yours faithfully, Sd/-illigible Sd/- Premal Patel Sd/-24-1-2010 24-1-2010 7.5 What emerges from the Institute's affidavit and the aforesaid statements of the students is: (1) the appellant was present at the time of incidence, (2) he had also taken photographs of the incidence, (3) he appears to have admitted his presence at the place and time of incidence, (4) the photographs obtaining on record are eloquent evidence of the incidence, (5) the incidence was a planned act and was caused in a public place, (6) the junior students were subjected to ragging in full view of the public, in a garden. 7.6 In the facts of the case, while considering the grievance of the appellant, it would be appropriate to also consider that the menace of ragging is growing in proportion and degrading or worsening in terms of form and method. It is a worst kind of humiliation to junior/fresh students who come with hope and aspirations and look forward to the seniors for guidance, support and protection and there is critical need to curb the practice which takes serious toll on the mental and emotional health of the student subjected to ragging. Actually, such instances have to be prevented with great care and vigilance and if at all it occurs, it should be dealt with firmly, and in accordance with law. 7.7 A glance at the appeal memo shows that the appellant has not raised, and has not considered it appropriate also to raise, any contentions or defence/explanation regarding his involvement. Instead he has raised the said two grounds, which read thus:- A. The learned Single Judge has committed serious error of law in dismissing the Special Civil Application.B. The learned Single Judge has committed an error by not considering the fact that the report of the Opponent No.3-Institute Level Anti-Ragging Committee (ILARC) and subsequent order/Circular dated 01.02.2010 of Dean-academic is illegal, arbitrary, malafide and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.C. The learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the appellant here above was not given any reasonable opportunity to be heard and the said order has been passed by the Opponent Authority without even serving the show cause notice. There is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. D. The learned Single Judge has committed a serious error by not considering the fact that the members representing Institute Level Anti-Ragging Committee i.e. Opponent No.3 were not in accordance with the regulations dated 01.07.2009 vide F. No.37-3/legal/AICTE/2009 circulated by All India Counsel for Technical Education, New Delhi and the circular issued by the education department, Government of Gujarat State vide GR No.PRCH/1309/729/Kh date3d 14.07.2009. Therefore, the committee itself becomes illegal and the report becomes void ab-initio. E. The learned Single Judge had committed a serious error by not taking into consideration the fact that the final order of rustication is specifically made by the Dean-Academic, which is not challengeable by the way of appeal. Therefore, the committee itself becomes illegal and the report becomes void ab-initio. E. The learned Single Judge had committed a serious error by not taking into consideration the fact that the final order of rustication is specifically made by the Dean-Academic, which is not challengeable by the way of appeal. It is worth noting that only the order, specifically passed by the Anti-Ragging Committee is challengeable in accordance with the notification dated 01.07.2009. 8. At this stage, we should refer to the relevant averments in the further affidavit by Dr. G.J.Joshi, Assistant Professor. The said affidavit has been made pursuant to the suggestion made to the respondent university to reconsider the matter with regard to the penalty of rustication of the petitioner for two semesters. It comes out from the said affidavit that the mandatory requirement regarding continuous evaluation of appellant's academic performance, has not been undertaken and it would not be possible to allow the appellant to keep the term at this stage. In the affidavit, it has, inter alia, been stated thus:- 3. xxx xxx xxx 3.1 The petitioner and other alike students have not completed required course work/labouratory work during the remaining period of the even (spring) semester 2009-2010. they are required to undergo work for 13 weeks out of 17 weeks. They have not undergone continuous evaluation of their academic performance for the semester as a mandatory requirement. 4. The petitioner will be allowed registration in even semester in December, 2010 so that he can fulfill minimum academic requirement for his studies. The other punishment i.e. at Item Nos.2 to 5 awarded in category A shall be reviewed by the Institute sympathetically after his joining for the even semester of the academic year 2010-2011. (emphasis supplied)9. Before taking up the contention raised by the appellant, we must clarify that in view of the defence of the respondent No.2 institute that the directives by AICTE are not applicable to it, we examined the provisions of AICTE and UGC Regulation as well as Government Notification and the Recommendation No.5.18 of Raghavan Committee and it has been found that the composition of the ILARC prescribed by AICTE or UGC regulations or the State Government Notification is almost similar. All the regulations are framed as per the direction by the Hon'ble Apex Court and they are almost similar. All the regulations are framed as per the direction by the Hon'ble Apex Court and they are almost similar. In view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's direction, it is necessary for all institutes to constitute the ILARC and the Anti Ragging Squad. Therefore, any insulation or exclusion protection would not be available to the respondent institute by claiming that the AICTE regulations are not binding to it. 10. In this backdrop, we may now turn to the two contentions raised by the petitioner. First, the objection against the composition of the ILARC.10.1 In this context, it needs to be noted that it is not in dispute that the competent authority of the respondent No.2-institute has constituted ILARC. However, in view of the dispute raised by the petitioner it becomes necessary to take into consideration the actual composition of the ILARC which is mentioned in para 2.2 of the reply affidavit by the Registrar of the institute and reads as follows:- (i) Dr. G.J.Joshi, Dean (Students Welfare), Chairman, (ii) Prof. G.R.Vesmawala, Professor in-charge, Student Welfare, Member, (iii) Dr. S.Kumar, Chief Hostel Warden, Member, (iv) Prof. A.J.Shah, Professor in-charge, Security arrangement, (v) Dr. D.P.Vakhariya, Dean (Academic), Member, (vi) Dr. P.L.Patel, Dean (Research & Consultancy), Member. 10.2 Though the provisions prescribing the composition for constituting ILARC are, as stated above, found to be almost similar, for the purpose on hand, we would refer to the UGC regulation because in its report the ILARC itself has made reference of (and even annexed it to its report at Annexure I) the UGC regulations, which would mean that the ILARC conducted the proceedings on the basis of UGC regulation. The relevant clause is clause 6.3(a) of the UGC regulation (other regulations contain similar provision) reads thus:- 6.3 ..........(a) Anti-ragging Committee: Every institution University including Deemed to be University imparting technical education shall constitute a Committee to be known as the Anti-ragging Committee to be nominated and headed by the Head of the Institution, and consisting of representatives of civil and police administration, local media, Non Government Organizations involved in youth activities, representatives of faculty members, representatives of parents, representatives of students belonging to the freshers' category as well as senior students, non-teaching staff; and shall have a diverse mix of membership in terms of level as well as gender. 10.3 In view of the said provision, the institute/university cannot just pick-up and appoint few members from its officers or staff without nominating anyone from amongst the students' representatives or parents' representatives or from civic/police administration, etc. If none of the representatives from different fields of society are nominated and if the Committee is not headed by the head of the institute, then it would amount to non-compliance of the relevant provision, particularly the directives of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10.4 On comparison of the composition of the ILARC constituted by the respondent institute and the composition prescribed by the said regulations, it emerges that the ILARC which considered the incidence in question, did not conform the requirement prescribed either by the AICTE or UGC regulations or the State's Notification or Raghavan Committee's recommendation so much so that it was not headed by the head of the institute. 10.5 We, therefore, hold that the composition of the ILARC was not in conformity with the relevant regulation. 10.6 In this backdrop, the question which arises is should the entire proceedings as well as the impugned order be set aside on the said ground. In this context, we may refer to the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 44 of the judgment in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag v. General Manager (PJ)., Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Haldia & Ors. [ (2005) 7 SCC 764 ], 44. We are aware of the normal rule that a person must have a fair trial and a fair appeal and he cannot be asked to be satisfied with an unfair trial and a fair appeal. We are also conscious of the general principle that pre-decisional hearing is better and should always be preferred to post-decisional hearing. We are further aware that it has been stated that apart from Laws of Men, Laws of God also observe the rule of audi alteram partem. It has been stated that the first hearing in human history was given in the Garden of Eden. God did not pass sentence upon Adam and Eve before giving an opportunity to show cause as to why they had eaten the forbidden fruit. (See R. V. University of Cambridge18.) But we are also aware that the principles of natural justice are not rigid or immutable and hence they cannot be imprisoned in a straitjacket. God did not pass sentence upon Adam and Eve before giving an opportunity to show cause as to why they had eaten the forbidden fruit. (See R. V. University of Cambridge18.) But we are also aware that the principles of natural justice are not rigid or immutable and hence they cannot be imprisoned in a straitjacket. They must yield to and change with exigencies of situations. They must be confined within their limits and cannot be allowed to run wild. It has been stated: " 'To do a great right' after all, it is permissible sometimes 'to do a little wrong'." [Per Mukharji, C.J. in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India19 (Bhopal Gas Disaster), SCC p.705, para 124.] While interpreting legal provisions, a court of law cannot be unmindful of the hard realities of life. In our opinion, the approach of the Court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than "precedential".(emphasis supplied)10.7 So as to examine the said issue, it is necessary to also consider the following aspects :-(a) there is no allegation about bias or victimization, against the committee/members.(b) the petitioner did not even claim before ILARC that he had been wrongly implicated and he did not dispute his presence at the time and place of the incidence. (c) he also did not dispute any of the statements by any co-student. (d) It does not come out from the record that until the petition came to be filed, the petitioner had raised objection regarding composition of the committee. Actually, on 11.03.2010, i.e. almost 7 weeks after the hearing, the appellant, for the first time submitted, through his Advocate, his objection and raised demand for documents. However, even in the said notice any objection with regard to the composition of the committee was not raised. (e) The objection seems to have been raised for first time before the learned Single Judge. (f) Furthermore, the appellant has not disputed or denied the incidence. The photographs are the eloquent evidence of the incidence.(g) The conduct in question is also in breach of the undertaking given by the appellant. (e) The objection seems to have been raised for first time before the learned Single Judge. (f) Furthermore, the appellant has not disputed or denied the incidence. The photographs are the eloquent evidence of the incidence.(g) The conduct in question is also in breach of the undertaking given by the appellant. (h) The recommendations by the ILARC are essentially based on and made in light of the statements of the students, which have neither been disputed nor controverted nor denied and above all they are not retracted by any student including the petitioner.10.8 When the credence and credibility of the committee/members is not impeached and when the conclusions of the ILARC also are not assailed on the ground that they are without any supporting evidence and/or contrary to evidence and the material/evidence on record before the ILARC also is also not impeached, when any allegation of bias and victimization against the committee or the students is not made, then in view of the aforesaid aspects and in light of the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are not inclined to upturn the ILARC's unanimous recommendation and/or to invalidate the entire hearing proceedings by the ILARC against the petitioner (who is found to be involved in serious infraction of conduct viz. act of ragging) on the ground that the composition of ILARC did not conform the recommendation of the Raghavan Committee and Apex Court's direction or the UGC regulations. We order accordingly. 11. Now, the second contention. The appellant's contention about violation of natural justice is based on the allegation that the order has been passed by the opponent Authority without even serving the show-cause notice. 11.1 The appellant has alleged that prior to asking him to appear before the ILARC to give his statement, the show cause notice was not served. 11.2 The respondent institute has not denied the said allegation. There is no reference about the notice in the ILARC's report as well. Hence, the appellant's assertion that the notice was not served, stands as an undisputed fact. 11.2 The respondent institute has not denied the said allegation. There is no reference about the notice in the ILARC's report as well. Hence, the appellant's assertion that the notice was not served, stands as an undisputed fact. 11.3 Though in all cases the notice need not be knitted with minute details about the allegations and the exact charge (it should not be vague, either) like in an FIR or a charge sheet and it may not be a specimen or illustration of exactitude, but the person against whom the proceedings are to be held and some action is under contemplation or is proposed to be taken, must be informed, beforehand, at least (i) the allegations/complaint and the charge, and (ii) the proposed punishment. The failure to give the notice informing the charge and/or stating the proposed penalty would constitute breach of natural justice.However, when undisputedly the notice was not served, the issue which arise are : what consequence should follow; should the entire action right from the starting point automatically crumble; should the entire proceedings be completely erased without having regard to any other relevant aspects and attending facts.The appellant claims that the entire action must fall. 11.4 The respondent institute has, however, countered the contention and has claimed that the appellant's statement before the ILARC is in the nature of admission and the allegations which are now being made are only afterthought. The respondent institute has submitted that the appellant had participated in the proceedings without protest and had given his statement wherein he admitted the incidence as well as the extent and nature of his role and that therefore the proceedings before the Anti Ragging Squad or the ILARC are not flawed. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Principal, Sardar Patel High School (supra). The said judgment will, however, not come to the aid of the institute since, unlike present case, in the cited case, the school had issued and served the notice. 11.5 With regard to the natural justice principles and its breach, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in the case of The Chairman, Board of Mining Examination & Chief Inspector of Mines, & Anr. v. Ramjee ( AIR 1977 SC 965 ) observed in para 13 that:- 13......... Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. v. Ramjee ( AIR 1977 SC 965 ) observed in para 13 that:- 13......... Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. ... (emphasis supplied) 11.6 In light of this, we may, examine the second contention (founded on the ground that before passing the order the notice was not served) the two limbs of the contention i.e. the two parts of the contention viz. (a) not informing the allegations and/or charge, and (b) not putting him to notice about proposed penalty and not calling for his response against proposed punishment. 11.7 So far as the first part (i.e. not serving the notice informing the allegations/charge) of the contention is concerned, in view of the settled legal position that the Court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case and it is not applied in a vacuum without reference to the facts of the case (see P.D.Agrawal v. State Bank of India [ 2006 (8) SCC 776 ], it needs to be examined in light of below mentioned factual aspects :-(1) the appellant participated in the proceedings without any objection and made his statement about the incidence and the nature and extent of his role,(2) his statement is in the nature of admission about the incidence and the extent of his role.(3) other students also have made their respective statements and the name of the appellant has figured in their statements.(4) either before or while giving his statement or immediately thereafter the appellant did not make any grievance that any notice informing the allegations/charge was not served. (5) the first time the appellant made any allegation or demand, was vide lawyer's notice dated 11.03.2010 i.e. almost 1? months after the order. (5) the first time the appellant made any allegation or demand, was vide lawyer's notice dated 11.03.2010 i.e. almost 1? months after the order. (6) before us also, except the lawyer's notice dated 11.03.2010, nothing else has been cited so as to demonstrate that any objection on any count was raised before the Committee.(7) the occurrence of the incidence is not denied.(8) even before us the appellant has not assailed the statements of other students on the ground that they are in correct and/or are actuated and tainted by malafides or even animosity or such other ground/s.(9) in present case, there is even no retraction of the statements by any student, including the appellant. 11.8 In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual aspects the question which arises, as regards the first part of the contention is that, should the hearing-proceedings be set aside on the ground raised by the appellant. 11.9 Now, having regard to the foundation of the petitioner's contention (viz. omission to give notice), it would be appropriate to refer to the observation by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Aligarh Muslim University vs Mansoor Ali Khan [ 2000(7) SCC 529 ]. In the said case undisputedly, any Notice calling for explanation from the respondent had not been issued though required under Rule 5 (8)(i) of the applicable Rules. In that backdrop the Hon'ble Apex Court addressed the issue as to whether the said respondent could plead breach of the principles of natural justice and for considering the said issue, took into consideration whether issuance of Notice would have made any difference and whether any prejudice was caused to the respondent. In paragraph Nos. 21 and 24 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:- 21. As pointed recently in M.C. Mehta Vs. Union of India ( 1999 (6) SCC 237 ), there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Union of India ( 1999 (6) SCC 237 ), there can be certain situations in which an order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For example where no prejudice is caused to the person concerned, interference under Article 226 is not necessary. Similarly, if the quashing of the order which is in breach of natural justice is likely to result in revival of another order which is in itself illegal as in Gadde Venkateswara Rao vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh [ 1966 (2) SCR 172 = AIR 1966 SC 828 ], it is not necessary to quash the order merely because of violation of principles of natural justice. 24. The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. In K. L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India, (1984) 1 SCC 43 : ( AIR 1984 SC 273 : 1983 Lab IC 1680), Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) also laid down principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved. ................... (emphasis supplied). 11.10 True it is that in present case Notice informing the allegations was not served to the appellant, however, as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Aligarh Muslim University (supra), there would be certain situations in which even the order passed in violation of natural justice need not be set aside in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this context, we may also refer to the judgment in the case of State Bank of Patiala & Others v. S.K.Sharma [ (1996) 3 SCC 364 ] wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that:- 28. The decisions cited above make one thing clear, viz., principles of natural justice cannot be so reduced to any hard and fast formulae. As said in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1 All ER 109 way back in 1949, these principles cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Their applicability depends upon the context and the facts and circumstances of each case. (See Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 2 SCR 272 : ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ). As said in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk (1949) 1 All ER 109 way back in 1949, these principles cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Their applicability depends upon the context and the facts and circumstances of each case. (See Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 2 SCR 272 : ( AIR 1978 SC 851 ). The objective is to ensure a fair hearing, a fair deal, to the person whose rights are going to be affected. (See A. K. Roy, v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCR 271 : ( AIR 1982 SC 710 ) and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 : ( AIR 1981 SC 818 ). As pointed out by this Court in A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262 : ( AIR 1970 SC 150 ), the dividing line between quasi-judicial function and administrative function (affecting the rights of a party) has become quite thin and almost indistinguishable - a fact also emphasised by House of Lords in C. C. U. v. Civil Services Union (supra) where the principles of natural justice and a fair hearing were treated as synonymous. Whichever the case, it is from the standpoint of fair hearing - applying the test of prejudice, as it may be called - that any and every complaint of violation of the rule of audi alteram partem should be examined. Indeed, there may be situations where observance of the requirement of prior notice/hearing may defeat the very proceeding - which may result in grave prejudice to public interest. It is for this reason that the rule of post-decisional hearing as a sufficient compliance with natural justice was evolved in some of the cases, e.g., Liberty Oil Mills v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 465 : ( AIR 1984 SC 1271 ). There may also be cases where the public interest or the interests of the security of State or other similar considerations may make it inadvisable to observe the rule of audi alteram partem altogether [as in the case of situations contemplated by clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Article 311 (2)] or to disclose the material on which a particular action is being taken. There may indeed by any number of varying situations which it is not possible for anyone to foresee. There may indeed by any number of varying situations which it is not possible for anyone to foresee. In our respectful opinion, the principles emerging from the decided cases can be stated in the following terms in relation to the disciplinary orders and enquiries : a distinction ought to be made between violation of the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, as such and violation of a facet of the said principle. In other words, distinction is between "no notice", "no hearing" and "no adequate hearing" or to put it in different words, "no opportunity" and "no adequate opportunity." To illustrate - take a case where the person is dismissed from service without hearing him altogether [as in Ridge v. Baldwin, (1964 AC 40]. It would be a case falling under the first category and the order of dismissal would be invalid - or void, if one chooses to use that expression (Calvin v. Carr, (1980 AC 574). But where the person is dismissed from service, say, without supplying him a copy of the enquiry officer's report (Managing Director, E. C. I. L. v. B. Karunakar (1994 AIR SCW 1050) or without affording him a due opportunity of cross-examining a witness (K. L. Tripathi, AIR 1984 SC 273 ), it would be a case falling in the latter category - violation of a facet of the said rule of natural justice - in which case, the validity of the order has to be tested on the touch stone of prejudice, i.e., whether, all in all, the person concerned did or did not have a fair hearing. It would not be correct - in the light of the above decisions to say that for any and every violation of a facet of natural justice or of a rule incorporating such facet, the order passed is altogether void and ought to be set aside without further enquiry. It would not be correct - in the light of the above decisions to say that for any and every violation of a facet of natural justice or of a rule incorporating such facet, the order passed is altogether void and ought to be set aside without further enquiry. In our opinion, the approach and test adopted in B. Karunakar should govern all cases where the complaint is not that there was no hearing (no notice, no opportunity and no hearing) but one of not affording a proper hearing (i.e., adequate or a full hearing) or of violation of a procedural rule or requirement governing the enquiry; the complaint should be examined on the touch stone of prejudice as aforesaid.(emphasis supplied)Thus, for any and every violation of a facet of natural justice the order need not be set aside without further inquiry on the touchstone of prejudice. Hence, it is necessary to find out whether the appellant has demonstrated that the said failure resulted into prejudice. In the case of Hira Nath Mishra & Ors. v. the Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi & Anr. [ AIR 1973 SC 1260 ], while considering the incidence concerning students and the action by the Education institute wherein, though the charge memo was given to the concerned students, neither the statements of the complainant-girls were recorded in their presence nor the said students were allowed to cross examine the complainant/witnesses nor the names of the complainant-girls were disclosed and the authority proceeded to pass order expelling the students for two years and when the decision was challenged, essentially on the ground of violation of natural justice, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that :- 11. Rules of natural justice cannot remain the same applying to all conditions. We know of statutes in India like the Goonda Acts which permit evidence being collected behind the back of the goonda and the goonda being merely asked to represent against the main charges arising out of the evidence collected. Care is taken to see that the witnesses who gave statements would not be identified. In such cases there is no question of the witnesses being called and the goonda being given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The reason is obvious. No witness will come forward to give evidence in the presence of the goonda. Care is taken to see that the witnesses who gave statements would not be identified. In such cases there is no question of the witnesses being called and the goonda being given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The reason is obvious. No witness will come forward to give evidence in the presence of the goonda. However unsavoury the procedure may appear to a judicial mind, these are facts of life which are to be faced. The girls who were molested that night would not have come forward to give evidence in any regular enquiry and if a strict enquiry like the one conducted in a Court of law were to be imposed in such matters, the girls would have had to go under the constant fear of molestation by the male students who were capable of such indecencies. Under the circumstances the course followed by the Principal was a wise one. The Committee whose integrity could not be impeached collected and sifted the evidence given by the girls. hereafter the students definitely named by the girls were informed about the complaint against them and the charge. They were given an opportunity to state their case. We do not think that the facts and circumstances of this case require anything more to be done. hereafter the students definitely named by the girls were informed about the complaint against them and the charge. They were given an opportunity to state their case. We do not think that the facts and circumstances of this case require anything more to be done. (emphasis supplied) 11.11 If we consider the facts of present case in light of the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court and if we also take into consideration - besides the factual aspects noted above the other factual aspects that (a) the appellant has not alleged malafides or ill-intention against the other students and their statements have not been assailed, (b) before us the appellant has also not claimed that he has been wrongly implicated (c) any one, including the appellant, has not retracted the statement/s, (d) before us the appellant has also not claimed that he was not granted opportunity to make his statement, (e) any specific allegation of bias or victimization against the committee has not been made, (f) another important point of the factual aspect is that the appellant himself was privy to the incidence and the incidence was within his personal knowledge and he has made his statement about the incidence and the nature and extent of his role, (g) any complaint, at any point of time before the petition was filed, is not shown to have been made, to any authority, alleging that the statement were extracted per force, (h) above all and besides the other aspects when the appellant was asked to give his statement, by which he actually did get the opportunity to state all facts and make his submissions, then, it emerges that the appellant has not shown and has failed to establish real prejudice, which is a relevant criterion to be taken into account while considering the demand to set aside the action on the ground of failure to serve notice/inform the allegations/charge. In the judgment in the case of P.D.Agrawal v. State Bank of India [ 2006 (8) SCC 776 ] the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that :- The Court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case. It is not applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It is no unruly horse. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It is not applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It is no unruly horse. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. (emphasis supplied).11.12 In view of the foregoing discussion including the observation by the Apex Court and the factual background, it emerges that the appellant has failed to show any real prejudice caused to him on account of failure to serve notice informing the allegations. In absence of anything to demonstrate prejudice to the appellant, we are not convinced and are not inclined, to accept the said first part of the contention and to set aside the hearing before the ILARC and its report on the ground of failure to inform the allegations/charge. Consequently, there is no justification to disturb, to this extent, the hearing before the ILARC and/or its report and the order of the learned Single Judge. We order accordingly. 12. Now, we may turn to the second part of the contention viz. the appellant was not put to notice about proposed penalty. 12.1 In this context, it is appropriate to note that while it is true that the appellant was asked to make his statement about the incidence, it is equally true that in absence of the notice informing him about the proposed penalty the appellant was left guessing as to which punishment, from amongst the different penalties prescribed under the regulations, will visit him i.e. which penalty, the disciplinary authority was contemplating to impose, in the event he was held guilty. Furthermore, he also did not get the opportunity to represent against the decision about the penalty. 12.2 An action taken by the authority can be recognized as an action taken in accordance with principles of natural justice if the opportunity to represent and tender response qua the proposed punishment is afforded. Ordinarily, the obligation to comply the principles of natural justice can be said to have been observed and fulfilled if the person is heard on the point of proposed penalty and the failure or omission would amount to non-compliance. The person against whom the proceedings are held and any action is contemplated should, ordinarily, get opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty. This is the minimal and elementary requirement. The person against whom the proceedings are held and any action is contemplated should, ordinarily, get opportunity to represent against the proposed penalty. This is the minimal and elementary requirement. Such requirement is all the more relevant and vital in cases where the regulations provide for different types/quantum of penalty and the discretion to decide the quantum is conferred on the authority. In present case the said elementary and primary requirement is not complied with inasmuch as the appellant was not put to the notice about the proposed penalty. 12.3 There may be myriad of exceptions, depending upon the facts of the case, so far as the proceedings and procedure for domestic inquiry is concerned and/or so far as the requirement for complying the principles of natural justice is concerned. However, an inquiry which is conducted against a person for appropriate action for his alleged misdemeanor, without putting him to notice, beforehand, about the proposed punishment would, ordinarily, amount to hollow formality or mere eye-wash and would not qualify as inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 12.4 It is not in dispute in present case that the appellant was not put to notice about the proposed punishment. He, therefore, did not get the opportunity to put forward his response as regards the proposed penalty and about its quantum. In absence of the notice, the appellant remained uninformed about the proposed penalty and did not get opportunity to represent against proposed penalty to that extent the impugned action regarding imposition of penalty stands vitiated. We hold accordingly. The matter cannot be closed or concluded at this stage since it would amount to closing the matter without any penalty.The question, therefore, would be what final order, while also addressing the aforesaid aspect, can be passed in such case. In this context, we may refer to the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 32 in the judgment in the case of State Bank of Patiala & Ors. (supra), which read thus:- 32. Now, coming back to the illustration given by us in the preceding paragraph, would setting aside the punishment and the entire enquiry on the ground of aforesaid violation of sub-clause (iii) be in the interests of justice or would it be its negation? In our respectful opinion, it would be the latter. Justice means justice between both the parties. Now, coming back to the illustration given by us in the preceding paragraph, would setting aside the punishment and the entire enquiry on the ground of aforesaid violation of sub-clause (iii) be in the interests of justice or would it be its negation? In our respectful opinion, it would be the latter. Justice means justice between both the parties. The interests of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be perverted to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counter-productive exercise. (emphasis supplied).In view of the facts of the case, we may also recall the observations by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Nag (supra) that:- We are aware of the normal rule that a person must have a fair trial and a fair appeal and he cannot be asked to be satisfied with an unfair trial and a fair appeal......but we are also aware that the principles of natural justice are not rigid or immutable and hence they cannot be imprisoned in a straitjacket. While interpreting legal provision, a court of law cannot be unmindful of the hard realities of life. In our opinion, the approach of the Court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than precedential... (emphasis supplied)As a result of the foregoing discussion, the facts of the case and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where we may exercise the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution so as to balance the situation. (emphasis supplied)As a result of the foregoing discussion, the facts of the case and the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that this is a fit case where we may exercise the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution so as to balance the situation. Having regard to the penalty which the appellant has already undergone and the young age of the appellant as well as the nature of the incidence which, even as per the institute's allegations would not amount to offence under I.P.C., and also keeping in focus the question about student's future carrier as well as the proposition that the penalty in such cases ought to have reformative ingredient as well, we, considering that with the penalty which the appellant has undergone he must have realized the ills of ragging and need for discipline, deem it appropriate and just to hold that the penalty which has been undergone by the appellant until now, should be treated as sufficient penalty in the facts of the case and the interest of justice would be served if the penalty order is set aside prospectively, i.e. for the remaining period. Consequently, we pass following order. In the facts of the case, only the order dated 1.2.2020 imposting penalty is set aside prospectively i.e. with effect from the date of present order; and the period during which the appellant has remained under suspension and/or order of rustication, is not disturbed and the said entire period will be treated as part of penalty. To this extent, the order by the learned Single Judge would stand modified. It is, however, clarified that neither the proceedings upto the stage of ILARC's report nor the report i.e. the findings are set aside. With the aforesaid clarification and direction, the appeal is disposed of. In view of the submissions during the hearing we have reason to believe that the position with regard to ILARC and the Anti Ragging Squad may not be in conformity with the direction by Hon'ble Supreme Court and the applicable regulations in other educational institutes as well though all educational institutes, coming within the purview of Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and/or the AICTE or UGC regulations or the Notification of the State, ought to constitute the ILARC as per the Judgment and the the regulations. Therefore, we deem it proper to request the Registrar to forward a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Education Department with instruction to take steps to ensure that in all educational institutes where Institute Level Ragging Committee, Anti-Ragging Squad, District Level Committee, etc. are required to be constituted in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and/or in accordance with AICTE/UGC Regulations, but have not constituted and/or though constituted are not in conformity with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the regulations, are directed that they must immediately constitute, the ILARC and the Squad if not constituted, and that the composition of the ILARC and the Squad must be strictly in consonance with the composition mentioned in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the applicable regulations. The appeal stands disposed of with the above stated clarification and directions. In the facts of the case, there shall be no cost.