Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 306 (CHH)

ANIL KUMAR BHARADWAJ v. STATE OF C. G.

2012-11-19

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks a writ/direction to set aside/quash the order dated 22.03.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby the petitioner has been debarred from appearing in next two consecutive semester examinations with immediate effect. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to appear for the final semester examination which was to be held from 16.04.2012 onwards. 3. The facts, in brief, relevant for adjudication of this petition, are that the petitioner was pursuing B.Tech course at the National Institute of Technology (for short 'the NIT') in the department of Biotechnology. The petitioner was admitted against the reserved seat of Scheduled Caste category. A complaint was made against the petitioner by the complainant namely Lata Sheo Bachan Upadhyay, Assistant Professor, Department of Biotechnology, on 09.11.2011 (Annexure P/3) for misbehaviour in the Biotechnology Staff Room which lead to a threat on the part of the petitioner to shoot her down. The Dean, Academics, NIT Raipur initiated action against the petitioner. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.12.2011 (Annexure P/4) by the Dean, Students Welfare to file his response to the complaint made by the complainant stating therein that the written reply should reach his office on or before 29.04.2011. The petitioner also submitted his reply on 29.04.2011 (Annexure P/5) making counter allegations that the teachers of the Department are creating tension and making complaint against the petitioner with an ulterior motive as the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category and they did not want him to clear the final year examination. It was also stated that the complainant told the petitioner that she would never be able to clear in the subject of the complainant, for which he expressed his regret and requested to close the enquiry. One more letter was sent on 03.02.2012 to the Dean, Students Welfare alleging that there is a discrimination and arbitrariness perpetrated on the petitioner. 4. Pursuant to the complaint dated 09.11.2011, a meeting was called on 14.11.2011 vide the notice dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure R-2/2) collectively, wherein the other faculty members namely Dr. Sameer Bajpai, Dr. S.L. Sinha and Prof. A.K. Ponia were also requested to attend the meeting of the Committee headed by Professor A.P. Rajimwale, Dean Students Welfare, as the Chairman, Enquiry Committee. 4. Pursuant to the complaint dated 09.11.2011, a meeting was called on 14.11.2011 vide the notice dated 12.11.2011 (Annexure R-2/2) collectively, wherein the other faculty members namely Dr. Sameer Bajpai, Dr. S.L. Sinha and Prof. A.K. Ponia were also requested to attend the meeting of the Committee headed by Professor A.P. Rajimwale, Dean Students Welfare, as the Chairman, Enquiry Committee. The Enquiry Committee took the final decision as under: "1. Mr. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj is an ex student of Bio Tech having backlog in VII and VIII semesters. He has accepted his mistake before the enquiry committee and also said sorry for the same but he refused to acknowledge the receipt of the complaint and also refused for written reply over the incident. He has also refused to share contact and address details of his parents. 2. It was his second act of misbehavior with the faculty. Previously the incident happened with Dr. Pratima Gupta in VIII Sem during Project work. At that time he was left off by giving oral warning by the HOD after he regretted of his act. Mr. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj has also orally admitted that incident in the presence of enquiry committee. 3. Committee feels that the complaint made by Dr. Lata Uppadhyay is correct, it is the act of gross indiscipline and student wants to extract marks by threatening the faculty. 4. Committee feels that suitable action as per institute rules should be taken against the student and his parents also be informed for the same." 5. In the Enquiry Committee, the statement of Pratima Gupta, Assistant Professor, Kush Kumar Nayak, Lecturer, Jignesh Patel, Lecturer, Ajay Kumar Pandey, Lecturer, C.M. Nisha, Lecturer, Apurb Pandey, Lecturer, Department of Biotechnology, and Mr. Mukesh Dewangan, student of B.Tech, Biotechnology, 8th Semester, NIT Raipur were recorded. All the witnesses have deposed that the petitioner misbehaved with the complainant in their presence using abusive language. Thereafter, it was decided to issue notice to the petitioner in the meeting of the Enquiry Committee, held on 20.12.2011 to submit his reply till 29.12.2011, as afore stated. Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.12.2011 to which reply was also submitted. After receipt of the reply, again a meeting of the Enquiry Committee was called on 31.12.2011 (Annexure R/2-4) wherein it was decided that the statement made in the said letter will be verified by the classmates of the petitioner. Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner on 22.12.2011 to which reply was also submitted. After receipt of the reply, again a meeting of the Enquiry Committee was called on 31.12.2011 (Annexure R/2-4) wherein it was decided that the statement made in the said letter will be verified by the classmates of the petitioner. Thereafter, notice was issued to all the students of 2011 batch, Department of Biotechnology, NIT, Raipur (page 22 of the return filed by the respondent No. 2) and the students were requested to send their response on the E-mail ID of the Chairman of the Enquiry Committee. All the students submitted that the allegation made by the petitioner were vague and it never happened that any discrimination or arbitrariness was committed by the complainant or Dr. Pratima Gupta. All the students have given reply in the same manner. Thereafter, in a meeting of the Enquiry Committee, held on 16.01.2012 (Annexure R-2/5), it was decided that the allegations made by the petitioner on 29.12.2011 were not correct and the charges made against the petitioner by the complainant, were found to be correct. The matter was taken to the Disciplinary Committee. The Disciplinary Committee ultimately reconsidered the matter on 06.03.2012 (Annexure R/2-6), comprising of A.P. Rajimwale, Dean, Students Welfare, Dr. Sameer Bajpai, Dr. M. Pradhan, Prof. S.D. Patle, Dr. (Mrs.) Shubhrata Gupta. Again, on 15.03.2012, meeting was finally held wherein the Chairman and all the members of the Disciplinary Committee were present. The Disciplinary Committee recommended to take action against the petitioner by debarring him from appearing in the next two consecutive semester examinations. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.03.2012 (Annexure P/1) was passed. 6. Ms. Farah Minhaz, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any misbehaviour and the entire enquiry has been conducted in his absence to protect the teachers. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed and the petitioner may be permitted to continue his studies. The petitioner has not received any notice in respect of the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee and also the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. 7. The punishment awarded to the petitioner is highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Thus, the impugned order may be quashed and the petitioner may be permitted to continue his studies. The petitioner has not received any notice in respect of the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee and also the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. 7. On the other hand, Shri S.S. Rajput with Shri Anant Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 to 4 submit that the petitioner cannot urge that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him as after examining several witnesses, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which was replied to along with counter allegations against the teachers. Thereafter, all the students were noticed to make their submission in respect of counter allegations made by the petitioner. In response to the said notice, it was found that all the counter allegations were wrong. The impugned decision taken by the Dean, Students Welfare, NIT, is just and proper in view of the gravity of the misconduct as aforestated, which was found proved against the petitioner. 8. During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 to 4, on instructions, urged that if the petitioner, tenders his unconditional apology in writing, the authorities may reconsider the case of the petitioner, which was strongly and stoutly denied by the petitioner. 9. This Court has examined all the documents and submissions made by the rival parties and has considered the case from all angles. On one side, there is a career of the student, and on the other side, misbehaviour, abuse and threat to shoot the teacher if he was not declared successful in the exam. In the case of this nature, where a student, while pursing his education in the institution, gives a go-bye to all the norms of discipline, decent behaviour or good conduct, the academic atmosphere of the College/University is polluted, strict disciplinary action, as has been taken in the case on hand, is necessary to create healthy and conducive atmosphere for educational betterment in the campus of the educational institution. Decent behaviour and discipline is the foundation of good educational institution. 10. There is no doubt, the action of the petitioner, as aforestated, comes within the purview of misconduct and it requires serious action. Decent behaviour and discipline is the foundation of good educational institution. 10. There is no doubt, the action of the petitioner, as aforestated, comes within the purview of misconduct and it requires serious action. Debarring the petitioner from writing two consecutive semester examinations is not disproportionate to the misconduct of the aforestated nature. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted with the impugned order. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.