ORDER 1. This common judgment shall dispose of W.P. (MD) Nos. 12841 to 12844 of 2012, as a common question of law and facts is involved in all these cases. 2. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from W.P. (MD) No. 12841 of 2012. 3. The prayer made in these writ petitions is for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 21.9.2012 passed by the second respondent. 4. The petitioners were admitted in Sacred Heart College for Nursing Course. The petitioners are now studying in 4th year as resident students. There are 130 students in the hostel of the I, II, III and IV year of Nursing. 5. It is the allegation of the petitioners that Fr.A.Maria Francis, Director of the College indulged in indecent activities with the girl students of the hostel. He used to normally visit the hostel at 8 p.m., and under the guise of Recreation Training used to call all the girl students, who normally used to be in night dresses at that time. In the name of recreation, he used to direct those girls to blow a balloon by keeping their hands at the back. He used to enjoy watching this act while sitting on the chair and clapping. He would also ask all the girls to jump. The third respondent also was in the habit of passing indecent comments having double meaning. The third respondent also threatened the students to cooperate with him. Otherwise, he will cut their internal marks and issue Transfer Certificate to them. 6. The matter did not end here. During the week end, at the prayer hours in the Church, the third respondent, in front of the entire hostel students, directed the girl students to confess if they have any sexual relationship with any other person including the acts of lesbian. The matter was finally reported to the warden of the hostel, who directed the students not to complaint as the third respondent was the Director of the College. 7. It is also the case of the petitioners that during Pongal holidays, students were not allowed to go home and were directed to attend the Church for three days. The Hindu students were also forced to perform prayers at the Church. 8. The matter was reported to Bishop, Kumbakonam being the Head of the Institution. 7. It is also the case of the petitioners that during Pongal holidays, students were not allowed to go home and were directed to attend the Church for three days. The Hindu students were also forced to perform prayers at the Church. 8. The matter was reported to Bishop, Kumbakonam being the Head of the Institution. The students also sat on Dharna on 20.12.2012 in the College campus. It was thereafter, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kumbakonam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruvidaimarudhur and Bishop came and heard the grievances of the students and directed them to wait for two days for them to take action. 9. On 23.2.2012, the Bishop informed the students that warden had been transferred, but no action has been taken against the third respondent. On coming to know that the third respondent was still holding the post of the Director, the matter was agitated and a Peace Meeting was held by the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Principal and the Watchman of the College, asked the petitioners not to give the names of local guardians and parents but to give the names of the relatives who are far away from the place, so as not to enable them to attend the Peace Meeting. 10. In the Peace Meeting, it was decided that the third respondent will be removed from the College. 11. Inspite of this, the internal marks of the students were reduced and on agitation and holding of Peace Meeting. The students, who sat in Dharna were targeted. The false allegations were levelled against the petitioners that they had ragged the juniors in the hostel. It was on the allegations of ragging that all the petitioners were suspended from the College and served with a charge memo containing 13 charges including the charge that these students sat in Dharna. 12. The petitioners were also asked to appear before the Enquiry committee on 9.9.2012. The petitioners appeared before the Enquiry Committee but no proceedings were held. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed directing the petitioners to take Transfer Certificate from the College. 13. The impugned orders are challenged on the ground of it being in violation of principles of natural justice. 14. The petitioners appeared before the Enquiry Committee but no proceedings were held. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed directing the petitioners to take Transfer Certificate from the College. 13. The impugned orders are challenged on the ground of it being in violation of principles of natural justice. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended, that the enquiry as well as the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law as it was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioners were not allowed to cross-examine any witness. 15. The Committee in fact did not record any evidence in the presence of the petitioners. It is not disputed that no notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the punishment order neither any evidence was recorded by the Committee, in the presence of the petitioners. 16. The impugned orders are also challenged on the ground of mala fide, by contending that the impugned orders have been passed because of the complaint filed by the students against the third respondent with the District Collector. 17. In support of this contention, the reliance was placed (i) On the complaint submitted to the District Collector, Thanjavur on 26.3.2012. (ii) The report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, and proceeding of the Peace Committee Meeting which reads as under: “Na.Ka. No. 941/2012/A4 Revenue Divisional Officer Kumbakonam. Dated: 27.3.2012. Action taken in the Peace Committee. Today on 27.3.2012 at about 5 p.m., there was a Peace Committee Meeting under the head of RDO regarding the dharna held in the campus of Sacred Heart College of Nursing by the Nursing Hostel students. In the Peace Committee DSP, Thiruvidai maruthur, Tahsildar, Kumbakonam Taluk, Hostel Administraters of Sacred Heart College of Nursing. Students and parents of Nursing College students were participated. The below mentioned decisions were taken in the meeting. 1. The Former Director of hostel Thiru. Mariya Francis is removed from the College. It is decided not to threaten the students by the Managements and should not misuse their power. 2. The College students had informed that there is a threatening from the college that they will reduce the internal marks for the students also have taken active part in the strike. But the management had informed that there will not be such action against the students. 3. No one should speak with the girl students by calling them independently. 4. The College students had informed that there is a threatening from the college that they will reduce the internal marks for the students also have taken active part in the strike. But the management had informed that there will not be such action against the students. 3. No one should speak with the girl students by calling them independently. 4. The former hostel warden Diana should not work during the work hours of the students at the hospital and during the visiting hours of the students to Laboratory. 5. It is decided to conduct a meeting of parents students and management regularly every month or once in two months. 6. The present warden Josephin is removed and Alphones alone is allowed to continue as warden of hostel. 7. Further there are complaints from the students that their parents were threatened by the reverent of their village. It is advised to the students not to go on strike frequently. All the students are requested to co-operate for peaceful and proper running of college. If there is any problem to the individual students, she can approach the Police by giving complaint. On the basis of above said decisions, the dharna conducted from 20.2.2012 is hereby withdrawn and it is informed that is a peaceful remedy.” 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Allahabad High Court in Ajai Kumar Mittal v. Vice Chancellor, Roorkee University, Roorkee and Others AIR 1991 All 177 , wherein the Honourable Allahabad High Court was pleased to lay down as under: “4. From the perusal of the affidavits filed by the parties and the documents annexed thereto, it is quite clear that examination of the petitioner commenced according to the petitioner with effect from 5.5.1990 and according to the University with effect from 7.5.1990. In the counter affidavit filed by the University the commencement of the examination with effect from 5.5.1990 has been denied and it has been stated that the examination in fact commenced from 7.5.1990. In the counter affidavit filed by the University the commencement of the examination with effect from 5.5.1990 has been denied and it has been stated that the examination in fact commenced from 7.5.1990. Petitioner however, has filed along with his rejoinder affidavit a certificate signed by all the students of 2nd year (civil) in which it has been mentioned that examination of Fluid Mechanic Practical quiz was held on 5.5.1990 till 5 p.m. Be that as it may, it is admitted to both the sides that examination continued upto 25.5.1990 and the inquiry was started just before the commencement of the examination and continued during the course of examination and the petitioner was asked to show cause on 14.5.1990 as to why he be not expelled from the University for one academic session in view of the charges mentioned therein. A student of 2nd year Engineering of the University has to work hard for getting through the examination and if the inquiry is started just before the commencement of the examination and continued during the examination period, it is quite natural the boy will get disturbed mentally with the result that he would neither be able to appear in the examination with full preparation nor would he be able to submit an effective reply to the show cause notice. A disciplinary inquiry against a student is neither ritual nor an empty formality. The object is such an inquiry is to ascertain the true state of affairs after giving reasonable opportunity to the delinquent. If in view of the facts and circumstances of a case, it is not possible for person concerned to participate in the inquiry effectively or to submit a reasonable reply during certain period, it will be a case of violation of principles of natural justice, if participation in the inquiry or a reply is insisted during such period. Holding of the inquiry just before the examination or continuing it during the examination period, appears to be highly unfair, unjustified and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 6. It is open to the authorities in the disciplinary proceedings against a student to record statement of witnesses in his absence and not to supply their statements to him so as to avoid the disclosure of the identity of the witnesses. 6. It is open to the authorities in the disciplinary proceedings against a student to record statement of witnesses in his absence and not to supply their statements to him so as to avoid the disclosure of the identity of the witnesses. Similarly, in case the supply of the inquiry report may lead to disclosure of the names of the witnesses the same may be withheld from the student. But in cases where witnesses are examined and evidence is collected behind the back of delinquent it is essential that the gist of the statements of these witnesses and other evidence as well as the gist of the inquiry report should be supplied to him so as to enable him to make reasonable and effective representation against the charges. Failure to do so would result in violation of fair principles of natural justice. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of City Corner v. Personal Assistant, AIR 1976 SC 143 , where Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that “It is not always necessary that the documents asked for should themselves be furnished provided the substance of those documents is furnished, always provided, however, that the summary is not misleading. xx xx xx xx We are of opinion that the order passed by the District Magistrate post haste immediately he received the appellants reply without either giving him the copies asked for or at least telling him that the material already furnished was sufficient to enable him to make his representation, and if he had any further representation to make he could do so offends the principles of natural justice.” In the instant case, as mentioned before, all evidence was recorded and collected behind the back of the petitioner and he was also not given the gist of the evidence as well as the inquiry report or its gist in spite of specific request having been made by him. Asking the petitioner to submit a reply against the show cause notice without such a gist has resulted in gross-violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play in action. That apart, conducing the inquiry during the course of examination was itself not fair and reasonable amounting to violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is, as such vitiated and is liable to be set aside.” 19. That apart, conducing the inquiry during the course of examination was itself not fair and reasonable amounting to violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is, as such vitiated and is liable to be set aside.” 19. Reliance thereafter was placed on the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P.S. Bharamaramba Devi v. Registrar, Nagarjuna University and Others AIR 2009 AP 365, wherein at paragraph 9 it is held that “Further, the incident alleged against the petitioner and her co-students was that they have entered into an altercation with the duty doctor. Perhaps having agitated over the health of their co-student and for that, this Committee recommends the expulsion of the student from the College itself without knowing the implications of the recommendation made by them. As already observed, the teachers, who are given place next to the God, conduct themselves in this manner, perhaps, the future of the student community will be at peril. During the course of arguments the petitioner brought to my notice that while she was going to University Registrar’s Office to submit her application for first year examination, she was stabbed in the University campus and a criminal case is pending against the concerned. She has also tried to produce several Press clippings to establish the vindictive attitude of the teaching staff of the Nagarjuna University against her for a trivial issue like an altercation with the duty doctor at a time they did not know about the health condition of their co-student. For all these reasons, I hold that the whole proceedings are the result of the bias and vindictive attitude of the teachers concerned and the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the entire disciplinary proceedings held against the petitioner including the order of expulsion are quashed.” 20. Finally, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Mathews Ashwanth Goveas v. The Director of Technical Education, Guindy, Chennai and 2 Others (1998) WLR 9 holding as “Failure to conduct due enquiry and principles of natural justice would vitiate the order of dismissal passed by the College for ragging of the students.” 21. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents by filing a counter. In the counter, it is admitted that the petitioners are the students of the College. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents by filing a counter. In the counter, it is admitted that the petitioners are the students of the College. It is alleged in the counter that the writ petitioners who are studying in fourth year of B.Sc Nursing, formed a group with colleagues and classmates of the fourth year students who stay in the same room. It is alleged that the petitioners along with seven other students misbehaved and indulged in ragging the junior students who were admitted in the year 2011 – 2012 who were ragged physically and mentally. 22. It is also submitted that on 22.12.2012, these students went on strike under the leadership of the petitioner. 23. It is also the alleged, that the petitioner in W.P. (MD) No. 12841 of 2012 is active member of the Student Wing of the Communist Party and she is having close association with Marxist party students to form a political party/outfit. 24. The stand in the counter is that it was due to the allegations of the petitioners, that the Bishop of the College had come and had suspended the Director and removed the hostel warden. 25. It was also decided that enquiry be held against petitioners. 26. It is submitted that the College Management was forced to take action against the petitioners, as there were number of complaints received from the Management and students of the College. In order to look into those allegations, a Committee was formed. The committee conducted detailed enquiry on 27.7.2012. (However, no such report has been placed on record.) 27. The number of allegations are levelled against the petitioners in counter but none of these allegations form basis for taking action, therefore, these allegations are irrelevant for the purpose of deciding these writ petitions. 28. Counter seems to be in the nature of justification of the third respondent to his conduct. It is surprising that even though the third respondent has been impleaded by name and specific allegations have been levelled against him regarding his misconduct with the girl students in the counter filed by the respondents allegations have not been specifically denied but there is only vague denial. 29. For the reasons best known to the respondents, they have not replied to the averments made in the writ petitions. 30. 29. For the reasons best known to the respondents, they have not replied to the averments made in the writ petitions. 30. It is well settled that the respondents in their counter are supposed to give parawise reply, as in the absence of specific denial, then averments in affidavit are taken to be admitted. 31. In the counter filed by the respondents, a new stand is taken without denying the allegations levelled against the third respondent. It is also not denied that no evidence was recorded, the enquiry, it is also not denied that no witness was examined in the presence of the petitioners. The petitioners were also not given any opportunity to submit their explanation or lead evidence in defence. 32. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Hira Nath Mishra and Others v. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Another AIR 1973 SC 1260 to contend that the principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may differ in different circumstances. When a proper enquiry is held by an enquiry committee, the rules of natural justice do not require that statement of girl students should be recorded in the presence of the male students concerned. It is not understood how this authority is even remotely applicable to the facts of this case. 33. In this case, enquiry was held against the girl students. The allegations are against the Director of the Institution who was prima facie, held guilty in the Peace Committee Meeting and directions were issued to remove him. 34. The respondents want to defeat the right of the girl students without even placing on record the enquiry report/file. Rather, no report has been filed by the Enquiry Committee, nor it is shown as to who were examined by the Committee to hold the petitioners guilty of the charges. 35. The impugned orders are nothing but the outcome of mala fide of the third respondent, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The impugned order are also violative of principle of natural justice, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 36. In the result, all the writ petitions are allowed, and the impugned orders are quashed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to continue with their studies in the College. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Petitions allowed.