KURIEN Vs. RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third round of the writ proceedings in respect of certain actions taken against the petitioner, a student of the Government Victoria College, Palghat, by its Principal and the Members of the College Council. The first of these series was O. P. No. 1683 of 1966 filed by the petitioner to quash the order of detention passed on him by the 1st respondent on the ground that the petitioner had resorted to malpractice during the annual examination held for the First Year B. Sc. Course in April 1966. The writ petition was dismissed in the first instance by a learned Judge of this Court. Writ Appeal No. 151 of 1966 against the said decision was allowed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice (vide 1967 KLT 97 ). In allowing the appeal and quashing the order of detention it was made clear that fresh steps against the petitioner in accordance with law were not barred, and that in the mean time lest the petitioner should lose the benefit of one year, it was imperative that he be permitted to attend the 2nd year Degree Course and continue his studies. It was also made clear that such attendance will not confer any right on the petitioner in case it is found that he is guilty and liable to the punishment.

(2.) The second round of proceedings opened with a fresh charge issued by the Principal against the petitioner, that he had not secured the requisite marks for promotion to the Second Year B. Sc. from the First Year Course and was liable to be detained on that account. This was followed by a fresh order of detention with a concession to sit for another examination on a date fixed. As the petitioner did not sit for the examination he was ordered to be expelled. This order of expulsion was challenged by the petitioner in O. P. No. 4514 of 1966. Before my learned brother Govindan Nair J. who heard the writ petition, the Principal agreed to withdraw the proceedings which resulted in the detention of the petitioner and his subsequent expulsion. It was therefore directed that these proceedings will be ignored. The question as to whether proceedings should be commenced against the petitioner in respect of the charge of malpractice which was the subject matter of Writ Appeal No. 151 of 1966, (and which by now had crystallised into insertion of previously prepared answer papers in the Inorganic Chemistry answer book) was debated in the judgment thus:

(3.) After admission of this writ petition on 7-4-1967, by interim order in C. M. P. No. 2776 of 1967 of the same date, my learned brother Isaac, J. ordered as follows: