R C THAMPAN Vs. PRINCIPAL MEDICAL COLLEGE CALICUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against the disciplinary action taken by the Managing Committee of the Medical College, Calicut, against the writ petitioners, students of the College, resulting in their suspension from the College for varying terms. The reason for the action was the "ragging" indulged in by the petitioners who may be broadly referred to as the senior students of the College, against the "freshers" or the junior students. "Ragging" has passed so much into popular parlance that we feel that any elucidation of the term would be unnecessary. The petitioners were charged with "ragging" of different grades and varieties ranging from abusing in filthy and obscene language or demanding the repetition of obscene language by the freshers, to beating, manhandling and other debasing forms of behaviour. The incidents are stated to have happened in the College and the hostel campus during the ragging season from 13 11 1977 to 3 12 1977. We shall state the facts in O. P. No. 2740 of 1978, with respect to which the principal arguments, were advanced. Ext. P1 dated 19 6 78 is the memo of charge. The petitioner is a student of the IV Year M.B.B.S. Class. The charge was for having manhandled, beaten, ill treated and abused the seven named students; and having inflicted physical and mental harm by forcing them to do violent exercises to the point of exhaustion, making them do obscene acts like masturbation, exposure of private parts of the body, forcing them to take bath in filthy water in the dead of night, teasing, making them dance naked, sing obscene songs and the like. It was recited that the petitioner had threatened the victims with dire consequences for non compliance with their demands and forced them (threatened ) to do the indecent acts against their will. The acts complained of are stated to have been committed during the period between 14-11-1977 and 3-12-1977, either alone or in company with senior students. The notice indicated that it was meant to give the petitioner an opportunity of defending himself and that no further opportunity for such defence would be afforded. The abstract of evidence at the foot of Ext. P1 set down the names of the seven victims referred to earlier in the body of the notice, and indicated against each, the acts of humiliation or embarrassment visited on him. For instance, one of them was beaten on the back, the second was beaten, the third was asked to masturbate, the fourth was asked to do vigorous exercises, and so on. We have set out the contents of Ext. P1 to afford a picture of the charge and the show cause notice served on the petitioner. Ext. P2 is a copy of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. He took up the stand that the charges were vague and indefinite, that the students had not adduced any evidence in support of the charge, and so on. Ext. R1 is the enquiry report submitted by a Committee of three Professors of the College, namely, Dr. P. Jacob Abraham, Professor of Anatomy, Dr. P. N. Neelakantan Achary, Professor of Physiology, and Dr. M. S. P. Nair, Professor of Biochemistry. Ext. R2 filed with the additional counter affidavit, is the affidavit of Dr. M. S. P. Nair, detailing the procedure followed at the enquiry. The Committee collected evidence from the 1st Year students (male and female). Each of them was first called and asked to narrate his experience of ragging by the senior students. The facts disclosed were recorded by the Committee. Ext. R2 records that the freshers gave sufficient evidence to establish the identity of the wrongdoers. Those whose evidence was considered concrete and tangible, were called again by the Committee and asked to identify the miscreants from a group of photographs. The photographs did not contain any name, and were mixed and kept separately for identification. As the next step the delinquent students were called and were informed of the gist of the evidence in respect of their reported involvement in the ragging activities. They were also specifically questioned. In the light of the evidence, the Committee found Ext. PI charges proved. This is the gist of Ext. R2. Ext. R1 enquiry report confirms the affidavit Ext. R2. It records that a good number of the freshers were unhelpful, or shy, or afraid of undesirable consequences, despite being assured to the contrary. A sufficient number gave the details of the wrong doers and enough evidence to establish their identity. Ext. R1 recorded that the evidence given by the lady students was not serious enough to warrant a detailed enquiry. That goes out of the picture. The nature of the evidence of the students was then discussed. It was recorded that on the occasion of the first questioning, the victims were more informative than on the second. The Committee was of the view that during the interval, the senior students either threatened juniors with dire consequences, or were able to win over their affection and good will; and hence, some of those who had given positive evidence on the first occasion abstained from cooperating with the enquiry during the stage of identification "of the photographs. The Committee also recorded that the time lag had somewhat cooled the ardour of the victims and their initial revulsion against the incidents. The Committee recommended stern action. Based on this report came Ext. P3 order by the Managing Committee of the College composed of 29 persons including the Principal. It rejected the statements of the victims of ragging at the later stage, as attributable to acts of cajolery or intimidation from the senior students, or to the development of a sense of comradeship and fellow feeling between the victims and the miscreants, since the date of the incident. The Management Committee preferred to rely on the earlier statements of the victims. The Committee recorded that the action complained of warranted dismissal of the concerned students from the College; but taking into consideration the petitions of the Parents' Association, and tempering justice with mercy, the Committee, inflicted in the case of each of the petitioners in these writ petitions the punishment of suspension for varying terms.

(2.) The action has been impugned on two principal grounds: that the Principal of the College (or, we believe, for that matter, the Managing Committee) had no jurisdiction to take disciplinary action against the petitioners and order their suspension; and that, the minimum requirements of natural justice had not been complied with in inflicting the punishment. To find against the jurisdiction of the Principal or the Committee, our attention was called to the provisions of the Calicut University Act, and in particular to S.2(2), 2(7), 2(11), 2(15), 2(24), 2(30), S.4, and clauses (xiii) and (xix) of S.23, of the Act. We were also referred to the First Statutes passed under the Calicut University Act, and the provisions of Chap.6, R.3, and Chap.26 thereof. We skip the definition Section of the Act, S.4 generally defines the jurisdiction of the University as extending to the specified Revenue districts. S.23 deals with the powers of the Syndicate, and provides that the Syndicate shall have the powers listed therein. Among them is the power under clauses (xiii) and (xix) which read:

(3.) The inherent right and the quasi parental authority of a teacher to proceed by way of disciplinary action against a pupil under his charge has been well recognised over the years; and we should think it is ingrained in the habits of thought and philosophy of our country. One of the well known early cases in which the quasi parental authority of the Principal of a College was expounded, was Sankunny v. Swaminatha Pattar (ILR 45 Mad. 548). The English decisions were surveyed. We wish to cite the following passage from the judgment of one of the Judges (Venkatasubba Rao, J.):