A SUBRAMANYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing after notice to respondents is disposed of by consent of parties and after hearing the counsel for parties by the foliowing order.

(2.) The petitioner is A. Subramanya a trainee of Mechanical Group Trainees' Course in the month of August, 1982, at the Industrial Training Institute, Hosur Road. Bangalore. The Institute is run by the 1st respondent-State of Karnataka. He was kept under suspension from 25-9-1982 to 13 10 1982 on account of his suspected involvement in some ragging incidents resulting in altercation at the Institute. A police complaint in that behalf was also lodged. Thereafter, the petitioner was called by the supervisory instructor who is said to have been appointed as enquiry officer and asked a few questions. After that he received a communication dated 13-10 1982 by which the 2nd respondent Principal of the Training Institute expelled the petitioner from the Institute for gross misconduct, as evidenced by Annexure-D to the petition. Aggrleved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for relief inter alia contending that Annexure D is totally without jurisdiction as well as illegal in as much as the Principal 2nd respondent had no power to remove him from the rolls of the Institute as that power was only with the Director in accordance with the provisions contained in S. 23 (1) of the Training Manual for Industrial Training Institutes/Centres published by the Government of India, Ministry of Labour.

(3.) Whatever may be the nature of the provisions contained in the Manual, the fact remains that the Principal is not entrusted with the authority to expel the student at the Institute. Sri M. H. Motigi, learned H Ct. Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, clearly concedes that the Principal did not have the power, though he had the power to suspend pending the enquiry and action against the erring student. It is useful to extract the relevant provision, namely, S. 23(1) which is as follows :