C D SEKKILAR Vs. R KRISHNAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the principal of the Pachiappa's College to readmit the petitioner to the Final Year Economics Honours Class.

(2.) The petitioner was a student of the final year Economics Honours Class in the Pachiappa's College, Madras. In 1949 he had been expelled from the hostel attached to the Pachiappa's College on 24 hours notice. The Principal says that he had to be expelled because of his improper behaviour. The petitioner affirms that he was wrongfully expelled from the hostel because he complained to one of the trustees about the scarcity of water in the bath room and the enhancement of the mess rate. On 19th July 1950, the Principal wrote a letter to the petitioner's father informing him that his son's behaviour had not shown any improvement even at the beginning of the year. He complained to him of a specific instance, namely, that when he was getting up the stair case, the petitioner in the presence of about 50 students mentioned in the most contemptuous language "What does it matter if the Principal comes". To this letter, the petitioner's father replied on 21-7-1950 wherein he complained that his son was expelled from the hostel for a small mistake and that consequently he had to spend large amounts. He appealed to him to treat his son as his son and to permit him to continue his studies. On 12-7-1951 about 4 p. m. an incident took place at the office room of the College. As to what happened at that place, there are conflicting versions. The petitioner's version is : On 12-7- 1951 at about 4 p. m. he asked the clerk of the College to give him a railway concession form for students to obtain his season pass to travel by electric train to reach the college. The clerk concerned informed him that forms could be issued only between 1-30 p.m. and 3 p. m. At 4-30 p. m. the petitioner saw the clerk Issuing the said forms to other students. He went into the office room and asked the clerk why he made this discrimination. The clerk assumed a haughty attitude and indulged in threatening and abusive language and said that he could do what he wanted and might even take the matter to ths President of the Trust Board. He replied that he was not so childish as to report this silly matter to the President. Just then the Principal stepped in and the position was eased with the result that the Principal himself got a form for him the next day with which he purchased the ticket. The Principal gives an entirely different version of what took place that day. According to him what happened was this. On 12-7-1951 at 3.15 p. m. the petitioner went to the College to apply for South Indian Railway concession form from the clerk concerned. He asked the petitioner to come for the forms in the hours stipulated therefor. On hearing this, the petitioner flared up at once and abused the clerk and created a scene. The Head clerk then asked the petitioner not to create any scene but to bring the matter to the notice of the Principal and thereupon the petitioner had talked disparagingly about the Principal. When the Head clerk asked the petitioner to report the matter to the President of the Trust Board, he abused in vulgar language the President of the Trust Board, the principal and the other members of the management. When he returned to his room at 3.30 p.m, he found the petitioner coming into the office room shouting. Then he took him to his office room and asked him the reason for his unseemly behaviour. He complained about the partiality of the office staff and talked in disrespectful and contemptuous language against the management and he had to ask him to go away. In the reply affidavit the petitioner denied that he called the respondent and the members of the management all sorts of names in indecent language or that he indulged in behaviour not worthy of a standard (Sic. Student). The version given by the Principal is supported by the affidavits filed by Gopala Chetty, despatching clerk, Chen-galvaroyan, Librarian, Pattabhiraman, Head Clerk, Venkatarao, one of the clerks, Krishnamachary, Assistant Professor in Telgu and Bhujangaraya Sarma, another Assistant Professor in Telugu. On enquiry, the Principal found that the behaviour of the student was such as to deserve disciplinary action. On 12-7-1951, he had taken statements from Chockalingam, Bhashyaramanujam, Seetha-pathi, Venkatarao, Krishnamachari, Bhujangaraya Sanna, Pattabhiraman and Ramachandran, who all described in detail what had all taken place in the office. The Principal called for an urgent meeting on 17-7-1951 of the members of the College Council. The College Council in their proceedings dated 17th July 1951 after having listened to the report of the Principal and the evidence of the office staff and the Assistant Professors unanimously resolved that the petitioner be sent out of the college for his grave misconduct.

(3.) The Principal says in his counter that on 18-7-1951 at about 11-15 a.m. he sent for the petitioner, who was in his class room but did not turn up and that at 11-45 a.m. he went to the class room of the petitioner and brought him to his chambers. When he put before him all the facts as stated by the clerk and the other members of the staff and asked him why he behaved in such a manner and used such indecent and insulting language, the Principal says the petitioner totally denied that he abused anybody or created any scene and turned round and called the Head clerk a liar and also the Principal a liar. The Principal then instructed his head clerk to get his Transfer Certificate ready and as soon as it was brought to him he signed it and handed it over to him. The petitioner refused to receive the certificate and proceeded straight to his class. As the petitioner refused to leave the class, the Principal requested the Professor to disperse the class for that day and the Transfer Certificate was thereafter sent to him by post on 20-7-1951. In regard to this incident, the petitioner gives a different story. According to him, the statements were taken by the Principal at a later stage as a counterblast to his protesting and rousing indignation against their partiality. He admits that the Principal orally intimated to him on 18-7-1951 about the conclusion arrived at by the College Council but states that he did not give him any opportunity to establish his innocence. According to the Principal, on the morning of 19th July 1951, when the classes were working peacefully in both the Science or Arts blocks, the petitioner at the head of about 100 students entered the Science block of the College at about 11-10 a.m. and from there came 'en masse' to the Arts block at about 11-30 a. m. shouting slogans like "Down with the Principal" disturbing the classes and persuading the students to come out. Fearing that some damage might be done to the College property, the Principal closed the college at about 11-45 a. m. for the day.