Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 604 (JHR)

Kandarp Jha v. State of Jharkhand

2010-05-17

SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2010
Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. By the impugned order dated 18.2.2010 the guardians of the petitioners have been informed that the petitioners had indulged in beating up two of their junior students on 16.2.2010, with regard to which an F.I.R. was lodged. The order says that considering the incident and on the recommendation of the disciplinary committee of the college the Management of the College has decided to expel the petitioners from the college. 2. The F.I.R. dated 17.2.2010 with regard to the incident dated 16.2.2010 has been filed as Annexure to this writ petition. According to the F.I.R. the two junior students assaulted belonged to the 2008 batch. The assaulting party belonged to the 2007 and 2005 batch. The F.I.R. itself mentions that the provocation for beating up of the two students of 2008 batch was that those two students were alleged to have fought and beaten up some other students earlier. 3. Considering these ,facts, firstly the case is only technically of ragging. Normally ragging is seen as harassment of the fresher students. Admittedly, as mentioned above, the reason and motivation and provocation for the assault appears to be of an earlier alleged assault by the two students of 2008 batch. 4. Further, although it is alleged in the counter-affidavit that a notice dated 17.2.2010 was given to the petitioners but a copy of that notice enclosed as Annexure 'C' to the counter-affidavit of the college shows that it only requires the petitioners and others involved to appear before the disciplinary committee at 3.00 p.m. on 17.2.2010 in the office of the Principal in connection with the incident of 16.2.2010. The notice does not give any further details and in my opinion it does not consititute a "reasonsable" opportunity of hearing. The "reasonable" opportunity of hearing, obviously in the light of the nature of the incident and the time available in hand, requires clear indication of the allegation against the person noticed and grant of a reasonable time to submit a reply in writing. A mere oral hearing can suffer from the vice of non-notice in the impugned order, about what has transpired during the hearing that is to say what defence the person noticed has taken. A mere oral hearing can suffer from the vice of non-notice in the impugned order, about what has transpired during the hearing that is to say what defence the person noticed has taken. This would make it difficult for the superior authorities or Courts to judge whether the defence has been considered in its proper perspective or not. 5. Further the F.LR. as registered is under Section 323 L.P.C. only and the injury reports also do not indicate any such major injury as would take the F.L.R. to any higher section e.g. grievous hurt. The injury reports also do not indicate that any of the two assaulted students had to be hospitalised as a result of the injuries caused, although rods are alleged to have been used for the purpose of assault. 6. The punishment of expulsion of a student from a college in the midst of a professional course being pursued by the student is virtually the extreme punishment which can be awarded. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the opinion that the extreme punishment awarded without affording an adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Further it would be open to the college to give a proper show-cause notice, inviting defence in writing within a reasonable time which in the circumstance of the case may be anything raging from three days to seven days, and the matter must thereafter be considered by the disciplinary committee as to whether or not all or any of the petitioners were actually involved in the assault and if so whether the said assault can fall within the definition of ragging not merely technically but also substantially. The disciplinary committee must also consider as to whether having regard to the overall facts and circumstance it is necessary to hand out the extreme punishment which would result in ruining the entire future prospects and career of the petitioners or a lesser punishment e.g. suspension from college for a limited period would be sufficient as a lesson not only to the petitioners but also to serve as an exemplar to others to refrain from future mischief. 8. In view of what has been stated above the writ petition is allowed leaving it open to the respondent college to take proper action. The impugned order enclosed as Annexure-3 series are hereby quashed.