Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 631 (KER)

PRINCIPAL v. VICE CHANCELLOR

2025-03-18

N.NAGARESH

body2025
JUDGMENT : (N. NAGARESH, J.) The petitioner, who is the Principal of Mother Arts and Science College, Peruvallur, Thrissur, a Private Self Financing Minority College affiliated to the 4 th respondent- University of Calicut, seeks to quash Ext.P1 order of the 2 nd respondent-Dean of Students Welfare. The petitioner seeks to declare that respondents 1 to 4 have no authority to interfere / sit in appeal against the disciplinary authority of the Principal of a Self Financing Minority College. 2. The petitioner states that the 5 th respondent and 6 th respondent were BBA students in the College. On 05.11.2024, a violent and verbal altercation took place between the two at the College gate bus stop. A complaint in this regard was received. The allegation was that while the 6 th respondent was attempting to board a private bus, the 5 th respondent forcefully pulled her out of the bus by hair causing the 6 th respondent to fall on the road. Thereafter, respondents 5 and 6 involved in violent physical attack and verbal abuse, which quickly escalated into a group fight when other female students got involved in the altercation. 3. Respondents 5 and 6 were placed under suspension for a week from 08.11.2024 pending enquiry. An Enquiry Commission consisting of five faculty members enquired into the incident and submitted Ext.P2 interim report and Ext.P3 final report. The Commission recommended dismissal of respondents 5 and 6 and lesser punishments on others involved in the incident. Ext.P4 notice of expulsion dated 22.11.2024 was issued on respondents 5 and 6. The disciplinary action taken against them was reported to the 2 nd respondent-Dean as per Ext.P4(a) communication. 4. Transfer Certificates were forwarded to respondents 5 and 6. However, they were permitted to appear for their University Semester Examinations. The 6 th respondent preferred a complaint before the 2 nd respondent challenging the disciplinary action, as per Ext.P7. The 2 nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply dated 03.12.2024. The petitioner was summoned for a hearing on 07.12.2024. After hearing the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent has passed Ext.P1 order dated 13.01.2025, directing readmission of two students who were dismissed from the College on account of the serious misconduct. 5. The 2 nd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P9 reply dated 03.12.2024. The petitioner was summoned for a hearing on 07.12.2024. After hearing the petitioner, the 2 nd respondent has passed Ext.P1 order dated 13.01.2025, directing readmission of two students who were dismissed from the College on account of the serious misconduct. 5. The petitioner states that the 2 nd respondent-Dean has no authority to sit in appeal against a disciplinary action taken by the Principal of a Private Self Financing Minority College against its students. Ext.P7 complaint has been preferred to the 2 nd respondent. The Calicut University Act or Statute does not provide any authority to the 2 nd respondent to interfere with a disciplinary action taken by the Principal of an affiliated College. 6. Rule 2 of Chapter XXVII of Calicut University First Statutes, 1977 provides for appointment of members of the Board for Adjudication of Students' Grievances. The Board consists of 11 members. In the hearing conducted by the Board, there was no minimum quorum. Therefore, Ext.P1 decision is null and void. 7. Rules 5 and 6 of Chapter XXVII of the Calicut University First Statutes provide for procedure for entertaining a complaint from a student. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Chairman of the Board is bound to conduct a preliminary enquiry. Only if the Chairman is prima facie satisfied about the veracity of the allegations, the complaint can be referred to the Board. If the complaint is liable to be entertained, the Board shall commence a detailed enquiry. The procedural formalities for adjudication of a complaint was not followed while passing Ext.P1 order. The 1 st respondent-Vice Chancellor has no authority to direct implementation of Ext.P1 without placing it before approval of the Syndicate. The 5 th respondent has not preferred any complaint. Still, the 2 nd respondent has directed the petitioner to take back the 5 th respondent. Ext.P1 is highly arbitrary and illegal. Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside, urged the counsel for the petitioner. 8. Respondents 1 to 4 entered appearance through Standing Counsel and resisted the writ petition. The 5 th respondent has not preferred any complaint. Still, the 2 nd respondent has directed the petitioner to take back the 5 th respondent. Ext.P1 is highly arbitrary and illegal. Ext.P1 is liable to be set aside, urged the counsel for the petitioner. 8. Respondents 1 to 4 entered appearance through Standing Counsel and resisted the writ petition. The respondents submitted that after the enquiry conducted by the respondents, they were of the opinion that considering the academic future of both the students they should be given an opportunity for correction and to reflect on their actions in order to restore their commitment to the values of discipline and integrity upheld by the College. The Committee suggested that both students receive a strong warning regarding their behaviour and they may be directed to submit a formal apology letter for their actions. The Board resolved to direct the petitioner to freeze the dismissal order of both the students, by treating the period of dismissal as punishment. As the decision was taken in the larger interest of the students, Ext.P1 is not liable to be interfered with by this Court, urged the counsel for respondents 1 to 4. 9. The 6 th respondent also resisted the writ petition. The 6 th respondent pointed out that the chargesheet against the petitioner was complex. No opportunity of hearing was given to the 6 th respondent by the petitioner or by the Enquiry Commission before coming to adverse conclusions. No right to cross-examine the witnesses, was extended. In view of the provisions contained in Chapter XXVII of the Calicut University First Statutes, the Board for Adjudication of Students Grievances has power to reverse the decision taken by the petitioner. The extreme penalty of dismissal imposed on the 6 th respondent does not satisfy the test of proportionality. Ext.P1 decision was taken on the basis of humanitarian concerns also. Ext.P1 is therefore not liable to be set aside. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 4. I have also heard the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent. 11. On the basis of a violent incident took place on 05.11.2024, respondents 5 and 6 were placed under suspension from 08.11.2024. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 4. I have also heard the learned counsel for the 6 th respondent. 11. On the basis of a violent incident took place on 05.11.2024, respondents 5 and 6 were placed under suspension from 08.11.2024. The Enquiry Commission constituted by the College submitted Ext.P3 enquiry report finding respondents 5 and 6 guilty and proposing to dismiss them from the College. Respondents 5 and 6 were accordingly dismissed/expelled from the College as per Ext.P4 order dated 22.11.2024. As respondents 5 and 6 refused to accept the Transfer Certificates, the Certificates were forwarded to them. 12. The 6 th respondent filed Ext.P7 complaint to the Board for Adjudication of Students' Grievances (BASG). The BASG meeting held on 07.12.2024 heard the petitioner and others. The Board resolved that both students be given an opportunity for correction and to reflect on their actions in order to restore their commitment to the values of discipline and integrity upheld by the College. The BASG therefore directed that both students be given an opportunity for correction and to reflect on their actions. The students were directed to submit a formal apology letter for their actions. The petitioner was directed to cancel the dismissal and to determine suspension period as a disciplinary measure. The 1 st respondent was directed to revoke the dismissal of both the students and to readmit them in the College. 13. The question arising for consideration in this writ petition is whether BASG or the 2 nd respondent is empowered to give such direction in a disciplinary proceeding conducted by a Private Self Financing Minority College. 14. This Court had opportunity to consider the nature of powers to be exercised by the BASG. In Secretary, Corporate Management of MOC Colleges, Kottayam and others v. State of Kerala and others [2022 (3) KLT OnLine 1054], this Court held that the BASG cannot be invested with any veto or blanket power without any guidence. This Court held that the BASG can have only a limited power. This Court held that if BASG finds that the disciplinary action is taken contrary to Rules framed by a minority institution, BASG will be justified in refusing to record approval. This Court held that the BASG can have only a limited power. This Court held that if BASG finds that the disciplinary action is taken contrary to Rules framed by a minority institution, BASG will be justified in refusing to record approval. This Court further held that under the guise of framing Regulations, it is not permissible either for the State or the University to infringe upon the constitutional protection conferred on minority educational institutions. 15. The judgment in University of Calicut v. ameen Rashid K.P. [2024 KHC OnLine 1103] was in respect of an incident where University directed Principal of a Private College to cancel the admission of a student. This Court held that University's role in Private Colleges is to the limited extent to ensure that University Regulations are followed. The University cannot assume the role of Principal and direct College Principal to act on their direction. 16. In the judgment in Thampan v. Principal, Medical College, Calicut [ 1979 KLT 45 ], a Division Bench of this Court held that the provisions of the Calicut University Act, 1968 does not affect the power of College Principal to deal with matters affecting discipline of College. This Court held that the inherent right and the quasi parental authority of a Teacher to proceed by way of disciplinary action against a pupil under his charge has been well recognised over the years. 17. In the case of the 6 th respondent, the interference by the BASG in the disciplinary action taken by the petitioner was not due to non adherence of any statutory provisions or guidelines. Ext.P1 does not disclose any finding of illegality in the disciplinary proceedings. Ext.P1 therefore cannot stand the scrutiny of law. The writ petition is allowed and Ext.P1 is set aside.