BANGALORE UNIVERSITY Vs. B P PUTTARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals raise a narrow but an important question. The question is whether the Vice-Chancellor upon suspending the students pending

(2.) The facts are these: By order dated 30th October, 1979, the Vice- Chancellpr in exercise of his powers under Ss. 12 and 62 of the Karnataka Universities Act, 1976 ("the Act"), suspended three, students who are the respondents herein. The order reads: Bangalore University No. VCP: 134:79 Jnana Bharathi Campus Bangalore-56 Dated: 30th October, 1979 By virtue of the powers conferred On me under S.62 and S. 12 of the Karnataka, State Universities Act, 1976, I hereby order that the following students be suspended, pending enquiry into their misconduct in not attending the classes regularly and causing disturbance to the meetings conducted by the Vice-Chancellor, working of the Adiministrative Offices and smooth working of the classes at Jnana Bharathi and Central College. For his misconduct in disturbing the meeting of the Board of Appointment for selection of Examiners held on 17th Oct. 1979 and for disturbing the classes in Central College, on that day and on subsequent days. For shouting in front of the Adminstrative Offices on 29th October 1979 and for entering the (3) Shri K. Shivalankaraiah, Student, Dept. of Pol. Sc., Jnana Bharathi Campus, Bangalore University. The Heads of the Departments concerned are requested to see that the names of the above students are removed from the attendance registers and they should not be allowed to attend thq classes until the enquiry is completed and orders of the Syndicate are obtained. Such of the students who are the inmates of the hostel should also be directed to vacate the hostel immediately. Sd - Vice-Chancellor ". The respondents were suspended pending enquiry against the misconduct like not attending the classes regularly; causing disturbance in the classes; threatening officials with dire consequences and threatening to set fire to the buildings. The Vice-Chancellor also directed the Heads of Departments concerned to remove their names from the attendance registers; prevent them from attending classes and deny them the hostel facilities until enquiry is completed and orders of the Syndicate are obtained. Challenging the validity of the order, the students approached this Court, for relief under Art.226 of the Constitution with a primary contention that the Vice-Chancellor has no power to suspend the students or to strike their names off the rolls or to deny them the hostel facilities. The learned single Judge upheld the first part of the order while quashing the second part. He conceded to the Vice-Chancellor the power to keep the erring students under suspension. He said that that power must necessarily be implied as preventive action in defence of the property of the University, security of the staff and to offices of Examination Branch, Finance Branch, Academic Sections, and V.C.'s Registrar's Offices and threatening the officials with dire consequences if they continued to work and for having threatened to set fire to the buildings. maintain discipline in the University. The relevant portion of his order in that behalf reads:

(3.) It was urged by Sri Sadasiva, learned counsel for the appellants that when, once the Vice-Chancellor is held to have the power to suspend the students pending enquiry in,to their alleged misconduct, that power must necessarily include all that is necessary and incidental for the effective execution of that power.