Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 84 (ALL)

Aditya Pratap Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-01-07

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA

body2016
JUDGMENT Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J. – Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Desh Ratan Sinha, learned counsel appearing for Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow. Sri Desh Ratan Sinha has produced the original record received from the college which has been perused by the Court. 2. Through these proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is a minor, through his father, has assailed the order dated 20.04.2015 passed by the Principal, Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'College') whereby on certain alleged grounds of indiscipline, the petitioner has been expelled from the college. 3. The basic premise of challenge in this petition to the impugned order dated 20.04.2015 is that the said order not only visits the petitioner with serious civil consequences but has been passed without requiring him to submit any explanation to the allegations of indiscipline and without issuing any show cause notice or any other notice. 4. Submission, thus, is that the impugned action on the part of the Principal of the college is clearly in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, hence, the same cannot be permitted to be sustained. 5. Guru Govind Singh Sports College, Lucknow has been established by the State Government which is run through a society, affairs of which are taken care of by the Management Board, U.P. Sports College Society. The said Management Board comprises of various State officers including Principal Secretary/Secretary, department of Sports, U.P, Secretary, Finance, Government of U.P., Secretary, Planning, Government of U.P, Secretary, Education, Government of U.P, Special Secretary, Sports, Government of U.P., District Magistrates of districts of Lucknow, Gorakhpur and Etawah, Director of Secondary Education, U.P., Regional Director, Sports Authority of India, Lucknow, Director, Sports, U.P. and the Principals of Sports Colleges at Gorakhpur, Saifai Etawah and Lucknow. 6. The college is cent-percent funded by the State Government wherein apart from imparting education from Class IX to XII, special coaching is also imparted for various sports such as athletics, cricket, volleyball, hockey, football, lawn tennis, badminton etc. The students in the college are admitted on the basis of an entrance test which comprises of physical test and also certain trials so as to ascertain the skills of the students in a particular sport. The students in the college are admitted on the basis of an entrance test which comprises of physical test and also certain trials so as to ascertain the skills of the students in a particular sport. The students admitted in the college are also imparted education and are subjected to high school and intermediate examinations conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad. The college is fully residential where the students are required to stay round the clock and participate in their studies as well as sports activities. The students admitted in the college are required to stay in hostel where apart from lodging facility, they are also provided with the facility of a mess and medical facility as well. 7. The college was, thus, established to sharpen the skills of those young students who possess talent to excel in particular sport and also show inclination to achieve excellence in their respective sports. 8. The petitioner after having qualified in the selection held in the year 2014 was admitted as a student in Class IX and having successfully passed Class IX was promoted to Class X. The petitioner, apart from pursuing his studies to appear in Board examinations, has chosen cricket as a sport in which he intends to be trained. The final examinations of Class IX were held in the month of February and thereafter, the petitioner along with other students was required to report in the college on 06.04.2015 after availing summer vacations. It appears that on the due date i.e., 06.04.2015, the petitioner did not report his joining in the college and accordingly the cricket coach submitted a report on 17.04.2015 to the Principal stating therein that the petitioner along with 14 other students had not reported to join on 06.04.2015 and since then they have been absent, which amounts to gross indiscipline. The report dated 17.04.2015 further states that the students were contacted and were warned and cautioned that they should report their joining immediately, otherwise they may be subjected to expulsion from the college on account of their absence without any information. The said report further states that till 17.04.2015 the petitioner had not reported to the authorities of the college. The report dated 17.04.2015 further states that the students were contacted and were warned and cautioned that they should report their joining immediately, otherwise they may be subjected to expulsion from the college on account of their absence without any information. The said report further states that till 17.04.2015 the petitioner had not reported to the authorities of the college. The said report dated 17.04.2015 was referred to the disciplinary committee comprising of three members which appears to have considered the matter on 20.04.2015 and recommended that the petitioner and other students be expelled from the college on account of gross indiscipline. 9. The record produced by learned counsel appearing for College contains a report submitted by the cricket coach to the Principal of college on 17.04.2015 and also the minutes of meeting or the report submitted by the disciplinary committee dated 20.04.2015. Perusal of the minutes of the meeting/report submitted by the disciplinary committee clearly reveals that the committee had considered the past conduct and achievement in sports of the petitioner as well as other students and it was found by the committee that in the last year the petitioner as well as other students had not attained any achievement in the sports. The said report further states that there is no possibility of these students to attain any achievement in future as well. The report of the committee, as available on record produced today, is as under: - ^^lsok esa] iz/kkukpk;Z] xq: xksfoUn flag LiksVZl dkyst] y[kumA egksn;] vkids vkns'k fnukad& 17-04-2015 ds dze esa fdzdsV [ksy esa vuqifLFkr py jgs Nk=ksa ds lEcU/k esa miyC/k djk;h x;h lwph esa vafdr dze la[;k&1 ls 15 rd ds lHkh Nk=ksa dh fiNys vkpj.k ,oa [ksy miyfC/k;ksa ij lfefr }kjk fopkj foeZ'k fd;k x;k bu leLr Nk=ksa }kjk xr o"kksZa esa dksbZ Hkh [ksy miyfC/k;kWa vftZr ugha dh x;h vkSj u gh Hkfo"; esa bu Nk=ksa }kjk fdlh izdkj dh miyC/kh izkIr fd;s tkus dh laEHkkouk gSA ;s lHkh Nk= vkt rd dkyst esa mifLFkr ugha gq, gSA vr% bu Nk=ksa }kjk [ksy esa : fp u fy;s tkus ,oa yEcs le; ls vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k dkyst fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vuq'kklughurk ds vk/kkj ij bu lHkh Nk=ksa dks fu"dkflr fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh tkrh gSA fnukad&20-04-2015 foey f}osnh dey dqekj flag cspsyky oekZ izf'k{kd okyhoky izf'k{kd ,FkysfVDl lkbZ izoDrk xf.kr izfrfu;qfDrA" 10. Admittedly, the petitioner after availing the summer vacations was expected and required to report his joining in the college on 06.04.2015. On 17.04.2015 i.e. after a period of only 11 days, the matter relating to non-joining of the petitioner was reported by the cricket coach to the Principal of the college. On the same day, the matter appears to have been referred to the disciplinary committee which considered the matter on 20.04.2015. The consideration made by the disciplinary committee is on record and the minutes of meeting of the said committee held on 20.04.2015 have already been extracted herein above. Perusal of the same clearly reveals that before making the recommendation no opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was ever afforded, neither the petitioner was heard in person by the members of the disciplinary committee. The minutes of meeting of the committee do not indicate in any manner that any kind of explanation to the alleged charges and allegations of indiscipline and non-achievement was ever called from the petitioner. 11. On receiving the recommendation of the disciplinary committee made on 20.04.2015, the Principal of the college has passed the order on the same day i.e. on 20.04.2015 itself. The orders passed in respect of the petitioner and other students are on record which are cyclostyled orders wherein gaps have been filled in indicating name of the students concerned and the class in which they were studying and also sports in which they were being trained. The impugned order only states that the petitioner has been absent from 06.04.2015 without any information which reflects the indiscipline on the part of the petitioner as per rules of the college and which has adverse impact on the other students and, therefore, administratively, taking adverse view the disciplinary committee has decided to expel the petitioner from college. 12. From perusal of the entire records as also the impugned order dated 20.04.2015 coupled with the minutes of the meeting of the disciplinary committee, it is more than clear that the petitioner was never associated with any inquiry, neither was he apprised of the allegations and charges relating to un-authorised absence or any other indiscipline. He was also not apprised of the allegations relating to alleged non-achievement during the past year. 13. He was also not apprised of the allegations relating to alleged non-achievement during the past year. 13. The college, as observed above, has been established by the State Government with twin objects of educating the students and also imparting appropriate training to them in particular sport of their interest so that they can excel in their field of activity relating to sports and also earn some prestige for the society in the State. Admission in the college was made as per performance of the petitioner in the selection held by the college authorities. Once the student is admitted in a college, like the present one, which is fully residential, student becomes the responsibility of the college authorities not only in respect of his studies but also in respect of his coaching and achievements etc. in the area of sports which the student opts. 14. In the instant case, the petitioner is said to be absent without any information for a period of 11 days i.e. from 06.04.2015 to 17.04.2015. Within three days, the entire proceedings were wrapped up and the impugned order expelling the petitioner was passed, that too, admittedly without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or without requiring him to submit his explanation to the alleged charges of un-authorised absence or indiscipline. 15. At this juncture, learned counsel for College has made three fold submissions. He has submitted that as per Clause 19 of the Prospectus issued by the college, the Principal can expel a student in case he has not followed the discipline or his/her behaviour with the college staff and fellow students is not upto the mark and is not in the interest of other students. The said provision states that in such a situation it will be the exclusive domain of the Principal to expel the students. The grounds on which expulsion can be resorted to as given in Clause 19 of the Prospectus are the indiscipline, misbehaviour, un-authorised absence and also if the student does not achieve the requisite level in the sports. The said provision states that in such a situation it will be the exclusive domain of the Principal to expel the students. The grounds on which expulsion can be resorted to as given in Clause 19 of the Prospectus are the indiscipline, misbehaviour, un-authorised absence and also if the student does not achieve the requisite level in the sports. He has, thus, submitted that in the instant case, the disciplinary committee has not only found the petitioner guilty of indiscipline as admittedly he was un-authorisedly absent but has also found that the petitioner's achievement in the sport was not upto the mark and thus, in such a situation, the Principal of the institution was empowered to expel the petitioner. 16. The second submission made by learned counsel appearing for College is that the cricket coach before submitting his report to the Principal on 17.04.2015 had contacted the petitioner telephonically and had cautioned him that he must report and submit his joining in the college failing which action for expulsion from the college can be taken. On this basis, Sri Sinha, learned counsel appearing for College has submitted that the requirements of observance of principles of natural justice in this case have been fulfilled and hence, the petitioner cannot, in law, complain that the impugned action was taken and the order was passed against him in violation of principles of natural justice. 17. The third submission made by learned counsel for College is that the petitioner has taken contrary stands in the petition inasmuch as at one hand, he has stated that he could not report after availing the vacations on 06.04.2015 on account of fact that he was suffering from viral fever and on the other hand he has stated before the Court that he could not submit his joining in the college on 06.04.2015 for the reason that he was attending his ailing grand father in the village. He has also stated that application, which is alleged to be addressed to the Principal and has been annexed as annexure no.3A to the petition and the medical certificate which has been annexed as annexure no.3B to the writ petition, was never submitted to the Principal or in his office. It has also been stated by Sri Sinha that the medical certificate annexed by the petitioner is not a genuine document. It has also been stated by Sri Sinha that the medical certificate annexed by the petitioner is not a genuine document. He has submitted that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, hence he is not entitled to any relief by this Court. 18. The three submissions made by learned counsel appearing for College opposing the grant of reliefs prayed by the petitioner in this petition are liable to be rejected for the following reasons. 19. So far as the argument made by learned counsel for College based on Clause-19 of the Prospectus is concerned, I may only observe that the said provision empowers the Principal of the College to take action in case any student is found indulged in indiscipline or he is found to be absent or he does not attain the requisite level of efficiency in the sports. There is no denial of the power being vested in the Principal to take action in case of indiscipline against the student including an action amounting to expulsion or cancellation of admission of a student, however the said power of expulsion has to be exercised only in accordance with law and settled norms and principles of natural justice for the simple reason that expulsion of a student from college or school entails very serious civil consequences inasmuch as the same ultimately results in not only hampering the educational career of the student but in this particular case his career in the sports as well. In such a situation, merely because the Principal has been vested with the authority and power to take a decision expelling the student from the college will not justify each and every action of expulsion of the student by the college. Any such action of expulsion has to necessarily meet the requirement of observance of principles of natural justice. 20. In respect of the second argument raised by Sri Sinha to the effect that since the cricket coach before submitting his report on 17.04.2015 to the Principal had cautioned the petitioner that in case he does not report, action would be taken and hence, such a course adopted by the cricket coach before reporting the matter to the Principal would suffice to meet the requirement of principles of natural justice, I unhesitatingly hold that the said argument is absolutely misconceived. 21. 21. The ultimate decision to expel the petitioner has been taken by the Principal of the college on the recommendation of the disciplinary committee. Admittedly, in this case, the disciplinary committee before making its recommendation on 20.04.2015 did not associate the petitioner in any kind of inquiry, neither any sort of show cause notice or any other notice requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation /reply to the allegations relating to alleged indiscipline was furnished or issued to him. The Principal on receiving the recommendation dated 20.04.2015 passed the impugned order expelling the petitioner on the same day i.e., 20.04.2015. The Principal also neither furnished the copy of the recommendation of the disciplinary committee to the petitioner nor did he on his own issued any notice or letter requiring him to submit explanation to the charges on the basis of which the action by the disciplinary committee was proposed against him. 22. It is also worthwhile to note that the disciplinary committee has not only taken into account the allegations relating to alleged indiscipline but it has also stated that the petitioner could not attain any achievement in the sports of his interest as well. 23. The minutes of the meeting of the disciplinary committee, as quoted above, do not indicate consideration of any material whatsoever, even for the name sake, to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioner did not attain the requisite level of achievement in his sports. Thus, there is no doubt on my mind to hold that the impugned decision has precipitated without following the settled principles of natural justice which, in the instant case, was required to be followed for the reason that for a student there cannot be any punishment graver than the expulsion or rustication. 24. In respect of the third submission made by learned counsel for College that the petitioner has not come up before the Court with clean hands inasmuch as that the application allegedly made by the petitioner to the Principal was never received and also that the medical certificate annexed as annexure no. 3B to the petition is a fabricated document, it may only be observed that the said argument is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. 25. 3B to the petition is a fabricated document, it may only be observed that the said argument is absolutely irrelevant in the present case. 25. Submission, in this regard, made by learned counsel for petitioner is that the application which has been annexed as annexure no.3A was submitted in the office of Principal by hand, however, no receipt was given to him. Similarly, it has also been stated by learned counsel for petitioner that the medical certificate which has been annexed as annexure no.3B is genuine document. 26. In this regard, submission made by learned counsel for College loses its force for the reason that the petitioner was never required to furnish his reply to the allegations on the basis of which impugned action expelling from college has been taken. If the petitioner had submitted medical certificate during the course of inquiry or in some reply required of him to be given by the authorities of the college, the genuineness/authenticity of the said document could have been verified by the college authorities themselves. 27. There is yet another aspect which needs a mention in this case. The impugned order expelling the petitioner is said to have been passed on 20.04.2015, however the petitioner has annexed a copy of the fee receipt which reveals that he deposited the fee of Rs. 6,150/- with the college authorities on 29.04.2015. The validity of the said fee receipt which has been annexed as annexure no.4 to the petition is not being disputed by learned counsel for College. After expulsion on 20.04.2015, under what circumstances fee was received by the authorities of the college is also a fact which strengthens the case of the petitioner that entire action against him has been taken in haste and without application of mind. 28. The Principal while passing the impugned order on 20.04.2015 has referred only to the report submitted by the disciplinary committee which has been extracted herein above and which clearly discloses non-consideration of any material and the same is also manifestly a result of complete non application of mind by the authorities concerned. 29. While parting with the case, it is also observed that the petitioner is a young boy of 14 years which is a very tender age at one hand but at the same time a very crucial age to develop as a disciplined student and as a responsible citizen in the society. 29. While parting with the case, it is also observed that the petitioner is a young boy of 14 years which is a very tender age at one hand but at the same time a very crucial age to develop as a disciplined student and as a responsible citizen in the society. True, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to pursue his studies and his sports activities in the utmost possible disciplined fashion, however, it is equally important for the administration of the college to ensure that the students including the petitioner studying in the college are taken care of so that they develop as a healthy sports person and responsible citizen. The responsibility of the college administration increases many folds in this case solely for the reason that the petitioner and other students studying there, belong to a very tender age group. Absence for a period of only 11 days, punishment of expulsion from the school pricks the conscience of the Court. 30. For the reasons given above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 31. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Principal of the college as contained in annexure no.2 to the petition is hereby quashed. The petitioner will be readmitted in Class X. 32. At this juncture, it has been informed that high school examinations to be conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education are going to commence in the next month i.e. February, 2016 and the last date for filling up examination form even with late fee etc. is already over and as such it would not be possible for the petitioner to participate in ensuing board examinations which are to commence in February, 2016. Keeping this fact and view, it is hereby directed that college shall admit the petitioner in Class X in the next session which is to commence on 06.04.2016, as informed by learned counsel for college. The petitioner shall give an undertaking on a notarised affidavit on Oath to the Principal of the college that he will pursue his studies and sports activities with utmost sincerity, devotion and discipline. The said affidavit shall be furnished within a week from today. 33. The directions in this case have been issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 34. No order as to costs.