K.SHOUKKATHALI Vs. REGISTRAR, MANIPAL UNIVERISTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case are as follows. The petitioner has obtained a degree in Bachelor of Science (Psychology) with a second class in the year 2004, and had obtained a Master of Science (Applied Science) degree in the year 2007. The petitioner had joined a two year M. Phil. Clinical Psychology Course with the respondent college and University in September, 2007. He had successfully completed the first year ( Part I ) of the Course. He had also completed the Final Year Internals and had submitted his thesis to the University for evaluation. The petitioner claims to have an unblemished record of conduct.

(2.) It transpires that on 9.7.2009 at about 3 p.m., the petitioner, when he was in the Department of Clinical Psychology, was assigned a patient who was said to have been referred from the concerned department to the department of Clinical Psychology for psychological evaluation. The patient was a girl aged about 12, who complained of joint pain and which was suspected to be Psychosomatic in nature-she was accompanied by her parents. It is the petitioner's case that he had followed the standard procedure and as per norms laid down by the Rehabilitation Council of India, in carrying out the evaluation procedure. It is stated that the patient was examined in the presence of her parents and that the petitioner had examined her joints in order to reassure the patient and to enquire whether she felt any pain anywhere. And generally questioned her about her activities at school and her inter-personal relationship with her friends. And that he had not behaved in any manner which could be a cause for complaint of indecent behaviour. The petitioner would assert that he has a younger sister who is said to be mentally challenged and who suffers from epilepsy and hence had first hand experience of the suffering and pain of the mentally challenged and which in fact is said to be the motivation for him to have chosen the particular course of study. Therefore, the petitioner claims that he having touched the patient during the evaluation only in order to reassure her as to the nature of her complaint was said to have been mistaken for molestation as alleged by the father of the patient.

(3.) On 20.7.2009, it transpires that the third respondent had issued a memo informing the petitioner of the complaint lodged against him and he was directed not to attend classes until further notice. His explanation to the allegation was directed to be submitted by 21.7.2009. It is the petitioner's case that he was not given a copy of the complaint, nor was he aware of any preliminary enquiry held in respect of the same.