ASHOK KUMAR Vs. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION GUINDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice of motion was ordered in all the writ petitions. After service of notice, the third respondent appeared, filed counters and by consent the main writ petitions themselves are taken up.The petitioners in the writ petitions are III year B.E. Degree course students in the third respondent College. Pursuant to a complaint given against them in Alanthurai Police Station, a case has been registered as Cr. No. 44/2000 under Sections 147, 341, 342 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against them is that they manhandled a group of eight second year students in Alanthurai Village. The affected second year students lodged a complaint with the third respondent/College also, resulting in a show cause notice being issued by the third respondent College on 26-2-2000 calling upon them to give their explanations in writing to the Principal within a week from the date of receipt of the show cause notice, as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them for their misconduct. The show cause notice further stated that since the matter was serious in nature, the writ petitioners were placed under suspension pending enquiry, that during the period of suspension they should not enter the college and hostel premises and that the suspension would come into effect immediately. The prayer in all the writ petitions is for certiorari to call for the records of the third respondent in respect of his proceedings in KIT/STS/MEMO/320/2K, dated 26-2-2000 and for quashing the same.

(2.) The facts in all the writ petitions being identical, it is not necessary to set out the facts separately and if there are any additional facts pertaining to any writ petition, they will be set out in the common order itself.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is as follows:On 16-2-2000, at about 9.00 p.m., nine second year B.E. students including Praveen Patrick, Dominic Prabhudas, Christober Vinodhkumar, Christobar Jeyakumar, Vasant Kersone, Vimal Jebamany, K. Prasanna, R. Johnson Premkumar and Issac Vasanthkumar came to Alanthurai from the College Hostel, picked up quarrel with the village people and hence as students of the College, the petitioners intervened fearing attack from the village people against the second year students. Ultimately, the second year students were taken to the local police and they were released by the police after getting an undertaking from them. These second year students were fully drunk and were even unable to walk. On 24-2-2000, Patric Prabakar father of Praveen Patrick, II year B.E. student, gave a written complaint to Alanthurai police station and a criminal case was registered against the petitioners. On the basis of the complaint, a criminal case in Crime No. 44/2000 was registered on 24-2-2000. The substance of the F.I.R. is that the petitioners manhandled the second year students in Alanthurai village on 16-2-2000 and in spite of several complaints to the College Management, the College had not taken any action and therefore the police complaint had been given. The F.I.R. is totally false and the delay of nine days in making the complaint amply demonstrates the said fact that the investigation in the criminal case is still pending and the charge-sheet is not yet filed. From 16-2-2000 till 24-2-2000, there was no murmur against the petitioners either by the College Management or by the second year students said to have been manhandled by the petitioners. A show cause-cum-suspension order dated 26-2-2000 was sent to the petitioners' parents as well as to the petitioners by Post to their residential addresses. The father of the petitioner in W. P. No. 4471/2000 received a communication from the third respondent dated 29-2-2000 stating that the College was unable to serve the show cause notice on the petitioner in the said writ petition in the last known address. The father of the petitioner in W. P. No. 4471/2000 sent a reply to the third respondent on 3-3-2000 denying the allegations in the show cause notice. The petitioners also have submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. The petitioners are eligible to appear for the University Examination to be held from 18-3-2000 as they paid the required examination fees and complied with the other conditions. In view of the suspension order, the petitioners are unable to attend the class and unless the suspension order is revoked, the petitioners may not be able to appear for the University Examinations due to shortage of attendance. It is stated in the grounds that no charge-sheet had been filed till the date of filing of the writ petition, that the charge- sheet is only at the initial stage of investigation, that mere registration of criminal case cannot be used against the petitioners as if the alleged incident is true, that only after charge-sheet and conviction there may be any case for taking action against the petitioners. Even otherwise, conceding that all the allegations are true, the alleged incident took place outside the campus it had nothing to do with the campus discipline and therefore the third respondent had no jurisdiction to pass an order of suspension on the basis of the incident outside the College campus. The complaint is belated, motivated and an afterthought. The complaint had not been given by the students alleged to have been manhandled, but by the father of one of the students. There is no case made out for suspension. There is no application of mind. The petitioners have never indulged in any other case during their course of three years in the College and they are maintaining strict discipline inside and outside the campus and the suspension order is therefore unwarranted. Till the date of filing of the writ petitions, no enquiry has been conducted. The order of suspension without a preliminary enquiry is also illegal.