Judgment 1. The petitioner who is a student of B.Com., in the Pachaiyappa's College, has come up with the above writ petition, challenging an order passed by the Principal of the College, expelling him from the college with immediate effect. 2. Heard Dr. G. Krishnamurthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Baskaran, learned counsel for the first respondent and Mr. R. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the Respondent University. 3. The petitioner joined B.Com., Degree Course in the first respondent college during the academic year 2013-14. On 01.08.2014, there was a group clash between the students travelling from Poonamallee to the college and from Parrys to the College. A complaint was lodged by the Principal on 11.08.2014 to the effect that as a sequel to the clash that occurred on 01.08.2014, violence broke outside the campus on 04.08.2014. The college was reportedly closed from 05.08.2014. 4. A Criminal Complaint was registered in Crime No.952 of 2014 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, his name was not found in the Criminal Complaint. However, four students including the petitioner were placed under suspension by the Principal by an order dated 11.09.2014. By a memorandum dated 07.10.2014, the petitioner and others were directed to appear before an Enquiry Committee on 13.10.2014, along with their parents. The petitioner and others appeared before the Enquiry Committee along with their parents. Thereafter by a memorandum dated 10.11.2014, the Principal ordered the expulsion of the petitioner. It is against the said order that the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition. 5. The Principal of the College has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that he lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Kilpauk Police Station on 11.08.2014 about a group clash that took place between two groups of students of the college, without naming any one; that the police arrested one Mr. 5. The Principal of the College has filed a counter affidavit contending inter alia that he lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Kilpauk Police Station on 11.08.2014 about a group clash that took place between two groups of students of the college, without naming any one; that the police arrested one Mr. Mohan in connection with the said incident; that on the basis of his confession, the petitioner as well as two other students were implicated and lethal weapons were recovered from the bushes near the MBA Block of the college; that on 20.08.2014, a student victim by name S.Sathish gave a letter narrating the incident and the injuries suffered by him; that on 09.09.2014, the police sent a report indicating the involvement of the students in different crimes in the city; that on the basis of the said report, the petitioner and others were placed under suspension; that thereafter, the petitioner and others were required to appear for enquiry; that the petitioner appeared along with his advocate on 13.10.2014, but the same was objected to by the Committee; that the petitioner refused to appear before the Enquiry Committee without his advocate and left the place without offering any explanation; that the Principal was not a part of the Enquiry Committee; that the Enquiry Committee submitted a report that was placed before the Principal on 01.11.2014; and that on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Committee, it was resolved on 10.11.2014, to expel the petitioner from the College. 6. The College has filed copies of the complaint given by the father of the victim boy by name S.Sathish, the copy of the First Information Report, the copy of the Accident Register of the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, the Remand Report and the letter of the victim boy. The College has also placed the proceedings of the Enquiry Committee dated 01.11.2014. The Enquiry Committee comprised of the Head of the Department of Physics as its Convener and the Associated Professors of the Departments of Chemistry, Mathematics and Tamil as its Members. 7. It appears from the report of the Enquiry Committee that three students did not turn up for the enquiry on 13.10.2014. However, the petitioner appeared along with an Advocate. When the Enquiry Committee refused to allow the Advocate to appear, the petitioner went away. Thereafter, he did not appear. 7. It appears from the report of the Enquiry Committee that three students did not turn up for the enquiry on 13.10.2014. However, the petitioner appeared along with an Advocate. When the Enquiry Committee refused to allow the Advocate to appear, the petitioner went away. Thereafter, he did not appear. Therefore, the Enquiry Committee was left with no alternative but to hold the petitioner guilty of the allegations. Consequently, the Principal passed an order directing the expulsion of the petitioner. 8. I do not find anything wrong with the action taken by the first Respondent. This is a case of campus violence in which students have used lethal weapons. The letter of the victim S.Sathish shows that the petitioner attacked him with a sickle, which resulted in a head injury and injuries on his hands. Therefore, it is not a fit case where this Court can interfere. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. However, in order to ensure that the petitioner has an opportunity to turn a new leaf in his life, I give him liberty to take a Transfer Certificate voluntarily. If the petitioner opts to take Transfer Certificate voluntarily, the first respondent may consider the same sympathetically. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2014 is closed.