SAJIL VENU Vs. PRINCIPAL S N COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who was a second year B. Sc student in the college under first respondent, challenges Ext. P5 order, dismissing him from the college. PETITIONER and some of his friends are said to have entered room no. 45 in the college, where students were to assemble to take a University examination, at or about 1. 45p. m. on 25-9-1991 and behaved in an indecent manner to a girl student (Bindu ). PETITIONER and others made overtures to the girl nestling close to her and suggested that "they could do the job in five minutes", as they had known each other earlier. This incident up set bindu so greatly, that she wanted to leave the examination hall, without writing the University Examination. The attention of first respondent Principal and others, including Prasad V. V. and Padma Sudheer, fellow students of petitioner, were attracted, when they found Bindu in tears. To cut a long story short, petitioner and others were placed under suspension, and a commission was constituted consisting of three members of the teaching staff, to enquire into the charges against them. by Ext. P1 petitioner was informed of the charges against him, and hewas directed to submit his explanation to the same, if he so desired. He submitted Ext. PS explanation. By Ext. P4 he was informed that Prof. M. S. Sudheeran, Chief Superintendent, K. Somasundaran, Lecturer in Mathematics and Invigilator in the examination hall; Prasad V. P. and Padma sudheer V. M. (students who has seen the incident) would be examined at the enquiry. He was asked to bring witnesses, if any, in his defence. PETITIONER appeared at the enquiry. The enquiry commission found him guilty of the charges, by Exl. R1 report dated 23-10-1991. Based on Exl. R1 report, petitioner was dismissed from the college as noticed earlier. Upon that, he moved this court.

(2.) HAVING regard to the number of cases of this kind coming before this court at regular intervals, and the impact such have on campus life, notice was issued to the Advocate General and Standing Counsel for the Kerala, Mahatma Gandhi and Calicut Universities. Shri. T. P. K. Nambiar, a senior counsel of this court 'and a former Law Teacher and Chief Examiner for law, Kerala, Cochin and Andhra Pradesh Universities, was appointed as amicus curiae. The Indian Federation of Women Lawyers sought impleadment, submitting that the incident revealed in this case was not an isolated one, and that remedial measures are necessary against such acts of 'sexual harassment'. Incidentally, in an additional affidavit dated 25-2-1992 filed along with C. M. P. 4840/92 for receiving Exts. P7, PS & P9, petitioner stated that the Indian Federation of Women Lawyers impleaded themselves "as per the directions of this Court". This is an imprecise and misleading statement. They sought impleadment on their own. However, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, was not appearing earlier, submitted that the statement was mistakenly made.

(3.) ACADEMIC bodies enjoy a position of primacy in matters relating to internal administration. It is primarily a matter in their domestic jurisdiction (See Thome v. University of London -1966 (2) Q. B. 237, Patel v. University of Bradford Senate -1979 (1) W. L. R. 1066 (C. A.), Thomas v. University of Bradford - 1987 (1) A. C. 795 (H. L.), Oakes v. Sidney Sussex College -19ss (1)All. fi. R. 1004 ). That, is not to say that courts will not interfere, if the procedure adopted by the authority is so grossly unfair, as to produce unjust results. Courts will intervene then, and only then. Prof. H. R. Wade (85 Law quarterly Review -1969 Page 471) said: ". . . . cerliorari might be breaking loose from its moorings. . . . Private or domestic tribunals have always been outside the scope of cerliorari, since their authority is derived solely from contract Natural justice is now a hard worked doctrine, and its foothold in the law needs to be clearly understood". The apex court has summed up the position in Hirnath v. Rajendra Medical College (AIR 1973 SC 1260) thus: "these authorities were in loco-parent is to all the students, male and female living in the hostel and the responsibility was greater because their guardians had entrusted them to their care the authorities could not dismiss the matter as of small consequence The committee called the girls privately and recorded their statements. Thereafter the students named by them were called. The complaint against them was explained to them. The written charge was handed over to them, and they were asked to state whatever they had to state in writing'. The committee was not satisfied with the explanation, and thereafter made the report. We think that under the circumstances of the case, requirements of natural justice were fulfilled. . . However un savory the procedure may appear to a judicial mind, these are facts of life which arc to be faced. The girls who were molested would not have come forward to give evidence in any regular enquiry Under' the circumstances, the course followed by the Principal was a wise one". Petitioner knew what the charges were. Ext. P4 informed him of the evidence against him and the witnesses to be examined to support the charges. Petitioner said, what he could, in his defence. He had no grievance regarding procedural unfairness at the enquiry, or at any time, till the punishment was imposed on him. In the circumstances, it is clear that" such requirements, as were necessary to be followed, were followed at the enquiry.