Order Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents. 2. The petitioners are stated to be second year students in the discipline of Mechanical. Electrical and Electronics stream respectively at the Motihari College of Engineering, a Government College under the Department of Science & Technology. They are aggrieved by the order of expulsion dated 23.12.2011 passed by the Officer on Special Duty on allegations for having indulged in ragging a first year student as held on enquiry by the Anti Ragging Committee. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are alleged to have ragged a first year student, Monika Shailesh. No statement of the victim was ever recorded much less furnished to the petitioners with an opportunity to defend. No show cause notice of any allegations was ever given to the petitioners. The procedure followed by the Anti-Ragging Squad and Anti-Raggil1g Committee was completely unilateral and ex parte in nature. At no stage of the alleged enquiry, the petitioners were associated with it in any manner to present their defence of having been falsely implicated in the matter. It was their alleged conduct which was the subject of enquiry. Yet they were not considered relevant to be associated with the enquiry. 4. The Anti-Ragging Committee which enquired the matter was not constituted in accordance with the regulations and did not have any representative of the civil and police administration, local media, NGO involved in youth activities, representatives of parents and students of the fresher category and senior students, non-teaching staff. There was not mixed gender membership. The order of expulsion was to be passed by the Anti Ragging Committee under Clause 8(3) and not the Officer on Special Duty. The Anti-Ragging Committee in its report dated 15.10.2011 has taken into consideration extraneous material and signed a back dated order when it alleges that on 17.10.2011 the petitioners compelled first year students to go to Patna for demonstration. 5. Learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 submitted that the petitioners had rushed to the Court without availing the alternate remedy of Appeal under Clause 8(4)(b) of the regulations before the Vice Chancellor. 6. Learned counsel for respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 submitted that the procedure provided under the Regulations and the directions of the Supreme Court have been followed. The college has constituted an Anti-Ragging Committee and Anti Ragging Squad. The occurrence took place on 14.10.2011. 6. Learned counsel for respondents 1, 2, 5 and 6 submitted that the procedure provided under the Regulations and the directions of the Supreme Court have been followed. The college has constituted an Anti-Ragging Committee and Anti Ragging Squad. The occurrence took place on 14.10.2011. The Anti-Ragging Squad recorded the statement of the alleged victim who was weeping. The Anti-Ragging Committee on 15.10.2011 adequately considered and deliberated the report of the Anti Ragging Squad. The conduct of the petitioners was adequately considered and discussed. The victim had fainted as a con• sequence of ragging. A show cause notice was given to petitioner no. 3 on 5.11.2011 at Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. A First Information Report has also been lodged on 15.10.2011. Eight professors constituted the Anti-Ragging Committee and participated in the deliberations. 7. The All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as "AICTE") has framed regulations dated 1.7.2009 under the AICTE Act for prevention and prohibition of ragging. Clauses 6(a) and 6(e) of the same reads as follows:- ''6(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. 6(e) It shall also be the duty of the Anti-Ragging Squad to conduct an on-the-spot enquiry into any incidents of ragging referred to it by the Head of the Institution or any member of the faculty or any member of the staff or any student or any parent or guardian or any employee of a service provider or by any other person, as the case may be; and the enquiry report along-with recommendations shall be submitted to the Anti-Ragging Committee for action. Provided that the Anti-Ragging Squad shall conduct such enquiry observing a fair and transparent procedure and the principles of natural justice and after giving adequate opportunity to the student or students accused of ragging and other witnesses to place before it the facts, documents and views concerning the incidents of ragging, and considerations such other relevant information as may be required." 8. The power to punish is vested in the Anti-Ragging Committee under Rule 8(3) which also provides different nature of punishments permissible in Rule 8(4)(a):- "8(3) The Anti-Ragging Committee of the Institution shall take an appropriate decision, with regard to punishment or otherwise, depending on the facts of each incident of ragging and nature and gravity of the incident of ragging. 4(a) Depending upon the nature and gravity of the offence as established the possible punishments for those found guilty of ragging at the institution level shall be anyone or any combination of the following:- (i) Cancellation of admission. (ii) Suspension from attending classes. (iii) Withholding/withdrawing scholarship/fellowship and other benefits. (iv) Debarring from appearing in any test/examination or other evaluation process. (v) Withholding results. (vi) Debarring from representing the institution in any regional, national or international meet, tournament, youth festival, etc. (vii) Suspension/expulsion from the hostel. (viii) Rustication from the institution for period ranging fr.om 1 to 4 semesters. (ix) Expulsion from the institution and consequent debarring from admission to any other institution. (x) Collective punishment when the persons committing or abetting the crime of ragging are not identified, the institution shall resort to collective punishment as a deterrent to ensure community pressure on the potential raggers." 9. The Supreme Court considered ragging as detrimental to academics and the students. Pursuant to the directions in 2009(7) SCC 726 (University of Kerala vs. Council, Members of Colleges of Kerala and Others), the AICTE has framed the aforesaid regulations for control over ragging. Normally a mere defect in the constitution of a Committee may not be sufficient to vitiate the decision taken by a committee irregularly constituted. But when the members of the Committee are statutorily defined, the Committee can be constituted in the manner prescribed under the Statute only and in no other manner. Allegations have been made that the irregularly constituted Committee acted in flagrant violation of law. The statutory violation assumes additional significance. There is no statutory provision permitting any deviation in the constitution. But when the members of the Committee are statutorily defined, the Committee can be constituted in the manner prescribed under the Statute only and in no other manner. Allegations have been made that the irregularly constituted Committee acted in flagrant violation of law. The statutory violation assumes additional significance. There is no statutory provision permitting any deviation in the constitution. The purpose of a broad based constitution was salutary to obviate any preconceived notions, bias and prejudices. A committee constituted contrary to statutory regulations is a nullity having no jurisdiction in the matter. The present committee as constituted consisted of seven mala professors of the college only and the officer on special duty. There was no mix of persons from other disciplines as required much less a gender mix. 10. The Anti-Ragging Squad is required to conduct on the spot enquiry and submit its report to the Anti-Ragging Committee. The statutory regulations make it mandatory to conduct the enquiry in a fair and transparent manner complying principles of natural justice, giving adequate opportunity to those accused of ragging and other witnesses including documents and views relevant. The identity of the Anti-Ragging Squad is distinct from the Anti-Ragging Committee. The former investigates and the latter decides. If a person investigating also sits in the decision making body, it vitiates the decision of the decision making body as no man can be a judge in his own cause. Sri Rana Amar was a member of both the Committees. 11. Expulsion is one of the punishments with others being less severe in nature. Expulsion from the Institution is a very serious matter. The more serious the punishment the greater the need for scrupulous compliance with procedures and the stricter the scrutiny by the Court. 12. The Department of Science and Technology which has established the college has also framed Disciplinary Rules for Government Engineering Colleges/Polytechnics. It too provides that charges shall be framed and communicated to the students. A show cause shall be served and the reply considered where-after the matter shall be referred to the disciplinary committee. It also provides for expulsion and lesser punishments. . 13. The respondents in their counter affidavit have displayed adequate understanding and knowledge of the orders of the Supreme Court and the AICTE Regulations. They were well aware of the nature of their duties and responsibilities under the law. 14. It also provides for expulsion and lesser punishments. . 13. The respondents in their counter affidavit have displayed adequate understanding and knowledge of the orders of the Supreme Court and the AICTE Regulations. They were well aware of the nature of their duties and responsibilities under the law. 14. The report of the Anti-Ragging Squad states that the petitioners indulged in ragging on 14.10.2011 at 1 O'clock in the afternoon on the verandah where other students of the 1st year and 2nd year were also present. The second year students were ragging first year students. One girl sitting separately was weeping. She disclosed her name as. Monica Shailesh of the first year. She alleged harassment by the petitioners since 26.9.2011, the day she came for registration. On the day of registration also the petitioners had ragged her.' There is no explanation in the report why the alleged victim did not lodge any report earlier or what the nature of ragging was. On the fateful day the petitioners are alleged to have asked that if anyone had problems with the dress code and ragging. The alleged victim confirmed her objections. She was told that it would be difficult for her to stay in the college. Her head started reeling. The report did not state that she had fainted. The report does not state that any statement of the victim 'was recorded. The recording of her statement is an entirely different matter from reproduction by the Anti-Ragging Squad of what she mayor may not have said. 15. If there were other students present at the time of occurrence surely the Anti-Ragging Squad acting fairly and transparently under Clause 6(e) Was required to record their statements also. No reason has been assigned why it was not done Clause 6(e) of the Regulations required the squad to record the statements of the petitioners also. It was only then that a fair and transparent procedure compliant with natural justice could be stated to have been followed. The statements in the report do not appear to constitute any ragging but merely disclose that the petitioners asked certain questions which were not to the liking of the alleged victim. 16. Ragging connotes an act constituting an unbecoming conduct arousing a sense of despondency and fear in junior students. Ultra sensitivity to life cannot constitute ragging. The statements in the report do not appear to constitute any ragging but merely disclose that the petitioners asked certain questions which were not to the liking of the alleged victim. 16. Ragging connotes an act constituting an unbecoming conduct arousing a sense of despondency and fear in junior students. Ultra sensitivity to life cannot constitute ragging. Considering the definition of ragging the Supreme Court in (2009) 15 SCC 301 (University of Kerala vs. Council of Principals of Colleges in Kerala) has observed as follows:- "18. "Ragging" means causing, inducing, compelling or forcing a student, whether by way of a practical joke or otherwise, to do any act which detracts from human dignity or violates his person or exposes him to ridicule or to forbear from doing any lawful act, by intimidating, wrongfully restraining, wrongfully confining, or injuring him or by using criminal force to him or by holding out to him any threat of such intimidation, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, injury or the use of criminal force." 17. The Anti-Ragging Committee was required to consider the report of the Anti Ragging Squad. If the report of the latter was not in accordance with the statutory provisions any consideration by the former shall not lend validity to a report invalid from its inception. The Anti-Ragging Committee could not have acted upon it. The report of the Committee states beyond the report of the Squad that the alleged victim fainted. If she had fainted, surely she would have been rushed to the Infirmary of the College for first aid. There would be a preliminary medical report also. No such materials have been suggested much less brought on record. 18. For commencement of the enquiry by the Ahti-Ragging Squad, there had to be a statement of the alleged victim recorded first. No such statement has been brought on record. The First Information Report has also not been lodged by the alleged victim. There is no explanation for lack of any statement of the alleged victim. The First Information Report is vague and only states that report had been received of her being ragged causing harassment and mental trauma. What was the nature of ragging and the kind of harassment and mental trauma has again not been mentioned. 19. Fairness in procedure required the respondents to first record the statement of the victim, furnish it to the petitioners and seek their reply. What was the nature of ragging and the kind of harassment and mental trauma has again not been mentioned. 19. Fairness in procedure required the respondents to first record the statement of the victim, furnish it to the petitioners and seek their reply. Even if cross-examination were not to be permitted, leaving the question open, the absence of any statement of the victim renders the opportunity for any defence completely futile. The reference to Annexure-H dated 5.11.2011 by the respondents for urging the giving of a show cause notice to petitioner no. 3 is an unfortunate mindless defence attempting to mislead the Court. It has no relevance and reference to the occurrence of 14.10.2011. 20. The power to impose punishment vested in the Anti-Ragging Committee under Rule 8(3). The power of the OSD under the disciplinary Rules of the college related to other matters of discipline excluding ragging. Once specific regulations were framed for ragging uf1der the AICTE Act, the special law with regard to ragging shall prevail over the general disciplinary power. Even otherwise the disciplinary Rules also required the giving of a show cause notice and consideration of the reply. The order of expulsion by the Officer on special duty referring to his powers under the Disciplinary rules is therefore held to be without jurisdiction and vitiated in law. 21. The role of the Anti-Ragging Squad was to enquire. The decision making authority was the Anti-Ragging Committee. A person holding the enquiry could not be part of the decision making body. That would make them the judge and executioner both, a concept fundamentally flawed. The participation of Rana Amar as a member of the Anti-Ragging Squad in the deliberations of the Anti-Ragging Committee completely vitiates its decision beyond repair. 22. There is no explanation in the counter affidavits of the respondents for these flagrant violation of law and procedures before imposing the extreme punishment of expulsion. The Court does not consider it necessary to go into issues of quantum of punishment since the entire procedure and the final order are found to be vitiated in law. The Court is surprised of the manner in which the University, the College and the officials of the State Government in the Department of Science and Technology have persisted and tried to defend what is completely an indefensible action devoid of any statutory sanction and authority. The Court is surprised of the manner in which the University, the College and the officials of the State Government in the Department of Science and Technology have persisted and tried to defend what is completely an indefensible action devoid of any statutory sanction and authority. The State Litigation Policy framed in 2011 and their obligations & responsibilities laid down therein appears to be of no concern to them. 23. The petitioners have remained out of the class since 23.12.2011. A finding has been arrived at that the respondents have acted in gross violation of the AICTE Regulations. The decision making process suffers from irreversible illegalities. The final order of expulsion has been held to be without jurisdiction. Violations of procedures resulting in dismissal or other disciplinary actions against a person in employment are vastly different from expulsion of a student from an educational institution. The effect in the latter case is more far reaching and detrimental. It cannot be viewed simply as a punishment. Unless done for justifiable reasons, it denigrates the student in his own eyes, demeans his own personality and lowers his self esteem which taken together can have irreversible deleterious effect when they are on the threshold of life ruining their career and life permanently. He/She may become a recluse or a deviant member of the Society. They may not be able to secure admission in any other educational institution. Their friends may treat them as outcastes and shun their company. Loosing out in the race for life they may then give up the code of conduct for being a member of a civilized society and may even go to the extent of contemplating suicide alike a student ragged. A student in the second year approximately 20 years of age may be an adult under the electoral law and the Penal Code. But they cannot be stated to have matured faculties to handle the rigours of the ups and downs of life. Follies of youth cannot stigmatize them for the entire life. An allegation of ragging, established by law is a sine qua non before any punishment for ragging can be imposed. Ragging cannot be condoned. But simultaneously it cannot be abused for victimization. 24. The availability of an alternative remedy and reluctance of the writ Court to interfere on that ground is more a matter of discretion than strict law. An allegation of ragging, established by law is a sine qua non before any punishment for ragging can be imposed. Ragging cannot be condoned. But simultaneously it cannot be abused for victimization. 24. The availability of an alternative remedy and reluctance of the writ Court to interfere on that ground is more a matter of discretion than strict law. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Normally, if an alternative statutory remedy is available, the writ Court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at the first instance. But if there has been a flagrant violation of statutory procedures uncontroverted, denying basic fair procedure and the opportunity of defence, the final order does not suffer from mere irregularity of procedure. It is an illegal order from inception. There shall be a difference between a defective enquiry and no enquiry at all. Alternative remedy may be relevant in the former but not in the latter. 25. Declining to uphold an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on grounds of availability of an alternative statutory remedy it was held in 1958 SCR 595 (State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Noah) as follows:- "10…It is well established that, provided the requisite grounds exist, certiorari will lie although a right of appeal has been conferred by statute, (Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 11, p. 130 and the cases cited there). The fact that the aggrieve J party has another and adequate remedy may be taken into consideration by the superior court in arriving at a conclusion as to whether it should, in exercise of its discretion, issue a writ of certiorari to quash the proceedings and decisions of inferior courts subordinate to it and ordinarily the superior court will decline to interfere until the aggrieved party has exhausted his other statutory remedies, if any. But this rule requiring the exhaustion of statutory remedies before the writ will be granted is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law and instances are numerous where a writ of certiorari has been issued in spite of the fact that the aggrieved party had other adequate legal remedies. In the King vs. Postmaster General Ex prate Carmichael a certiorari was issued although the aggrieved party had an alternative remedy by way of appeal. In the King vs. Postmaster General Ex prate Carmichael a certiorari was issued although the aggrieved party had an alternative remedy by way of appeal. It has been held that the superior court will readily issue a certiorari in a case where there has been a denial of natural justice before a court of summary jurisdiction. The case of Rex VS. Wands worth Justices Ex prate Read is an authority in point. In that case a man had been convicted in a court of summary jurisdiction without giving him an opportunity of being heard. It was held that his remedy was not by a case stated or by an appeal before the quarter sessions but by application to the High Court for an order of certiorari to remove and quash the conviction. At p. 284 Viscount Caldecote, C.J. observed:- "It remains to consider the argument that the remedy of certiorari is not open to the applicant because others were available. It would be ludicrous in such a case as the present for the convicted person to ask for a case to be stated. It would mean asking this Court to consider as a question of law whether Justices were right in convicting a man without hearing his evidence. That is so extravagant an argument as not to merit a moment's consideration. As to the right of appeal to quarter sessions, it may be that the applicant could have had his remedy if he had pursued that course, but I am not aware of any reason why, if in such circumstances as these, he preferred to apply for an order of certiorari to quash his conviction, the court should be debarred from granting his application." 26. The order of expulsion dated 23.12.2011 is set aside. The petitioners are held entitled to continue with the course and attend classes. The issue of attendance for the period they have been prevented from attending classes cannot be utilized by the respondents to prejudice the petitioners. The petitioners also cannot carry it forward to their advantage hereinafter. 27. The petitioners are held entitled to a monetary compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) each. It shall not be paid to them in form of cash. The amount shall be adjusted against their fees and other educational expenses. They are not required to make any further deposits/payments till it is exhausted. 28. 27. The petitioners are held entitled to a monetary compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh only) each. It shall not be paid to them in form of cash. The amount shall be adjusted against their fees and other educational expenses. They are not required to make any further deposits/payments till it is exhausted. 28. The State Government is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the salary of those who constituted the Anti-Ragging Squad and the Anti-Ragging Committee for having acted in gross abuse of statutory powers and authority. 29. The writ application is allowed.