Judgment :- 1. This writ petition if filed for a direction to the first respondent to recall the Transfer Certificate dated 110. 2009 issued to the petitioner herein and permit him to continue 12th standard in St. Francis Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Thirumangalam - 625 706, Madurai District. 2. Accordingto the petitioners mother, her son has been a student of the first respondent school for the past 9 years and that she had lost her husband 12 years ago. She is working as a Nurse in the local Municipal Hospital; while so, on 110. 2009, she was summoned by the first respondent. In her presence, the first respondent dictated a letter of undertaking to her son, i.e. the petitioner herein. Her son complied with the instruction and signed the same. According to the school Management, her son fell into bad company and it is alleged that he has developed the habit of smoking. The Management started suspecting that her son is under the influence of drugs, but according to the petitioners mother, it is false. She would further state that for the past one month, her son was under the direct supervision of her brothers family and they had not noticed any kind of withdrawal symptoms in him. 2a. While so, on 110. 2009, the petitioners mother was once again asked to appear before the first respondent and write out a letter in Tamil. She told them that being a Keralite, she cannot write in Tamil fluently. An old official of the school brought a hand written letter and the petitioners mother was asked to sign the same. Without knowing the contents of the said letter, the petitioners mother signed the same and the Transfer Certificate was handed over to her. 2b. It is the further case of the petitioners mother that she pleaded with the School Management to permit her son to complete the Schooling, as he is in XII Standard and that if he is to discontinue his education at this point of time, his life and future would be affected. But, the Management did not consider her request. Finally, she was asked to get a certificate from Dr.L.Ramasubramanian, great social worker and Psychiatrist, that her son is fit to continue the studies. He also issued a certificate to that effect to the School authorities. But, the Management did not consider her request. Finally, she was asked to get a certificate from Dr.L.Ramasubramanian, great social worker and Psychiatrist, that her son is fit to continue the studies. He also issued a certificate to that effect to the School authorities. Despite handing over the said letter to the Correspondent of the School, the School Management did not relent. Therefore, the petitioners mother made representations to various authorities on 210. 2009 including the second respondent. Since there was no response, she has come forward with this writ petition on the ground that the expulsion of her son from the first respondent School is not in terms of Rule 27 of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as Code) 3. The first respondent, Principal of the School has filed counter affidavit stating that St.Francis Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Thirumangalam was started in the year 1977 to cater to the educational needs of the Rural people in and around Thirumangalam. Most of their students were the first generation literates and nearly 70 staff members and 1499 students (both boys and girls) are studying in their school. 3a. The first respondent would state that the petitioner, namely, Master P.Christofer Joshua studied in Standard XII in their school in the academic year 2009-2010. On an earlier occasion, the petitioner involved in several mischiefs like quarreling with co-students and he was orally advised not to do so. While so, on 110. 2009, the petitioner smoked Ganja in the school premises during class hours and when it was brought to the knowledge of the first respondent, he immediately called the petitioner and enquired him in the presence of two teachers viz., Mrs.A.Nirmala Devi and Mrs.P.Gayathri. On enquiry, the petitioner admitted his guilt of misconduct of smoking ganja during class hours within the school premises. Immediately thereafter, the petitioners mother was summoned and informed about her sons serious misconduct. The petitioner apologized in the presence of his mother and made an undertaking in writing on 110. 2009 that he will not bring drugs and smoke inside the school premises and on his failure, the school management can take disciplinary action against him, which was countersigned by the petitioners mother on 110. 2009. 3b. The petitioner apologized in the presence of his mother and made an undertaking in writing on 110. 2009 that he will not bring drugs and smoke inside the school premises and on his failure, the school management can take disciplinary action against him, which was countersigned by the petitioners mother on 110. 2009. 3b. It is further stated by the first respondent that the said act of the petitioner was witnessed by two teachers, Mrs.Nirmala and Mrs.Gayathri and to that effect, the said two teachers have jointly given a statement dated 110. 2009. The first respondent has stated that on apology and undertaking given by the petitioner, he decided to pardon him for his misconduct and advised him to behave properly in future and allowed him to continue his studies considering his career. 3c. On the very next day, i.e., on 110. 2009, during class hours, Mr.Sivan Raja, P.E.T. Master of the first respondent School, brought the petitioner and one Shivachandran and one Arunkumar, students of Class XI before the first respondent and informed that on his visit to the toilet, he found the three boys quarreling, and also found that the water pipe was damaged. On enquiry by P.E.T. Master, the said Shivachandran and Arunkumar complained that the petitioner was in possession of ganja and when they advised the petitioner not to use it in the school premises and to throw it away, the petitioner got agitated and damaged the water pipe in the toilet. Further, on 110. 2009, the first respondent conducted an enquiry with the three boys and the said boys, Shivachandran and Arunkumar and Mr.Sivan Raja, P.E.T. Master gave statements separately. Thereafter, the first respondent called the petitioners mother and informed her about her sons serious misbehaviour and also informed the staff Council to decide the future course of action. 3d. Thereafter, on 110. 2009, the staff Council meeting consisting of 12 members chaired by the Correspondent was convened and it was attended by all the staff members. In the said meeting, it was deliberated that the petitioners misconduct was serious in nature and he was also pardoned on various occasions earlier for various misconducts. Further, it was observed that the misconducts of the petitioner would affect the other students and he would be a bad example to other students. In the said meeting, it was deliberated that the petitioners misconduct was serious in nature and he was also pardoned on various occasions earlier for various misconducts. Further, it was observed that the misconducts of the petitioner would affect the other students and he would be a bad example to other students. Finally, in order to safeguard the interest of the students and the reputation of the institution, it was unanimously decided to issue Transfer Certificate to the petitioner. On the same day, i.e. on 110. 2009, the petitioners mother was called and briefed about the misconduct of her son at the school premises, in spite of the apology and undertaking made by them on 110. 2009. 3e. The first respondent has stated that the petitioners mother regretted for her sons misconduct and requested him to issue Transfer Certificate to her son, by way of a letter dated 110. 2009, which was signed by her and her son. It is stated by the first respondent that on requisition from the petitioners mother, Transfer Certificate was issued to the petitioner on the same day. Thereafter, on the same day, the first respondent sent a Report to the Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Madurai, the second respondent herein, about the issuance of Transfer Certificate to the petitioner, along with a copy of the Staff Council Report. 3f. Subsequently, the petitioners mother made a representation dated 210. 2009 to various authorities, making false allegations against the school authorities and a copy of the said representation was sent to the first respondent, wherein the petitioners mother has suppressed the misconduct of her son and the earlier enquiry conducted on 110. 2009. The Inspector of Matriculation Schools, Madurai asked for a Report on the representation dated 210. 2009 and the first respondent forwarded a detailed report to the said authority on 310. 2009. 3g. The first respondent has denied the averment made by the petitioners mother in the writ petition alleging that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and his mother as false. The petitioner and his mother were given sufficient opportunities on 110. 2009 and 110. 2009 before the issuance of Transfer Certificate and the Transfer Certificate was issued on the written request made by the petitioners mother and for valid reasons, in accordance with the Code of Regulation of Matriculation Schools. 3h. The petitioner and his mother were given sufficient opportunities on 110. 2009 and 110. 2009 before the issuance of Transfer Certificate and the Transfer Certificate was issued on the written request made by the petitioners mother and for valid reasons, in accordance with the Code of Regulation of Matriculation Schools. 3h. The first respondent has specifically denied the averments made by the petitioners mother, as detailed below: .(i) The statement of the petitioners mother stating that her son was directed to write a letter on 110. 2009 on dictation from the first respondent is totally false because, the petitioner himself wrote the said letter on his own volition. .(ii) Further, the averment in paragraph 2 of the affidavit that on 110. 2009, the petitioners mother has stated that since she is a Keralite, she cannot write fluently in Tamil and so, an old official of the school brought a hand written letter and she was asked to sign the same, is false. According to the first respondent, this self contradiction would show that the averments of the petitioners mother in her affidavit are totally false and frivolous and hence, he prays this court to dismiss the writ petition. 4. Onthe above background pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 5. The foremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the apology and undertaking were made by the petitioner and his mother in a circumstance, when they were in a pitiable condition. Further, the letter written on 110. 2009 by the petitioners mother is in Tamil and she being a Keralite could not understand the language properly. He would vehemently contend that the provisions under Rule 27(i) of the Code has to be complied with before proceeding to expel a student by issuing the Transfer Certificate. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent School submits that initially there was an enquiry on 110. 2010 and on 110. 2010, a staff council meeting consisting of 12 members chaired by the Correspondent was convened and it was unanimously decided therein to issue Transfer Certificate to the petitioner. He would also submit that there was an enquiry with two of the students and also with P.E.T. Master, who have given separate statements about the misconduct of the petitioner. 2010, a staff council meeting consisting of 12 members chaired by the Correspondent was convened and it was unanimously decided therein to issue Transfer Certificate to the petitioner. He would also submit that there was an enquiry with two of the students and also with P.E.T. Master, who have given separate statements about the misconduct of the petitioner. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, there is no infirmity with the action taken by the first respondent in issuing Transfer Certificate to the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents annexed in the typed set of papers. .8. In the case onhand, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was a student of the first respondent School and he studied up to Class XII in the said School in the academic year 2009-2010. It is seen that the petitioner is the only son of his mother and that he had lost his father. From the averments of the first respondent, it is seen that the petitioner was in the habit of smoking and taking drugs and he was summoned by the first respondent and warned about his serious misconduct. However, specific averments in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the counter would show that the petitioners mother was informed about her sons misconduct on 110. 2009 and then on 110. 2009. The staff council meeting was convened and they have unanimously decided to issue Transfer Certificate to the petitioner. If this statement is admitted, the averment of the first respondent that only on the request of the petitioners mother, the Transfer Certificate was given to the petitioner, cannot be sustained. .9. Now, the only point that arises for consideration is, ."Whether the action of the first respondent is justified as per the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools?" .10. Rule 27(i) of the Code of Regulations for Matriculation Schools, Tamil Nadu would read as under: ."Gross cases of immorality or insubordination shall be punished by expulsion after charges are framed and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself is given and a suitable enquiry is conducted by the Principal. A report should be sent of all such cases to the Inspector within seven days." 11. A report should be sent of all such cases to the Inspector within seven days." 11. A careful scrutiny of the above provisions would reveal that under Rule 27(i) of the Code, if there is any immorality or insubordination by the student, he shall be punished by expulsion after charges are framed and a reasonable opportunity to defend himself is given and a suitable enquiry is conducted by the Principal. But, in the instant case, it is crystal clear that no charges were framed against the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to defend himself and no proper enquiry was conducted. In such absence, the action taken by the first respondent in expelling the petitioner from the School by issuing the Transfer Certificate is contrary to the above Rule and therefore the action of the first respondent is not justified. 12. It is also seen that the alleged incident took place on 110. 2009, but on the very same day, after conducting the Staff Council Meeting, a unanimous decision was taken to issue Transfer Certificate to the petitioner. Therefore, there is non-compliance of the provision contemplated under Rule 27(i) of the Code and hence the action of the first respondent cannot be sustained. 13. The object and reasons of Rule 27(i) of the Code stipulates the regulatory methods in the expulsion of a student. When such a procedure is specifically contemplated, it is the obligation on the part of the respondent to scrupulously follow that regulation while expelling a student from the school for immorality or insubordination. 14. In the instant case, the first respondent has grossly violated the regulations contemplated for that purpose. It is also relevant to note that it is an ordained principle that if there is any action against a student, a reasonable opportunity to defend himself has to be given and in the enquiry conducted, if such an opportunity is not provided, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice. On a cursory analysis of the entire facts of this case and the material documents, it is seen that such an opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner herein. 15. In view of the above position and also taking into account the future of the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. 15. In view of the above position and also taking into account the future of the petitioner, this court is inclined to grant the relief as prayed for by the petitioner. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to continue in Standard XII, if there is no other legal impediment. It is open to the first respondent to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with Rule 27(i) of the Code and initiate any further proceedings. In fine, the writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. (MD) No.1 of 2009 is closed.