TRILOCHAN SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR SMALL INDUSTRIES SERVICE INSTITUTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who is a student-trainee in the Central Foot-wear Training Centre at the Industrial Estate, Guindy has filed this appeal against the judgment of veeraswami J. dismissing his petition for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Director of Small Industries Service Institute, Madras, terminating his training at the Centre. The Central Foot-wear Training Centre has been started by the Government of India with the idea of developing footwear industry in the country by giving technical training to youngmen in the manufacture of footwear. The period of training is eighteen months; during the period the trainee is to be paid a stipend of Rs. 60 per mensem; there is also a hostel attached to the centre. The appellant was one of those selected for training for the course between september 1960 and the end of February 1962. He was also admitted as a member of the hostel attached to the training centre. At the time of his selection, the appellant executed an agreement in favour of the Director of Small Scale industries Service institute, agreeing to refund the stipends received by him in case he were to leave the institute before his training was completed. The rules under which training is given in the institute provide for the termination of the training at any time if the candidate absents himself from training for more than 35 days during the entire period of training or if he does not evince interest or show progress in spite of warnings. The rules also provide for an examination at the end of the period of training and for the award of certificate to successful candidates at such examination.

(2.) ON the 4th of August 1961, the Deputy Director of the Centre received a complaint from a certain girl living in a house close to the hostel that the appellant had at about 10 a. m. on the 28th of July 1961 trespassed into her house while she was alone with a young girl, servant, and behaved in an indecent manner by trying to hand over to her a letter. It appeared that such an at- tempt was not his first misbehaviour. It was alleged that about ten days earlier, he had sent a letter addressed to the same girl conveying expressions of love and using objectionable language. The Deputy Director of the Institute took action on the complaint forthwith, and on the same day issued a written notice to the appellant informing him of the substance of the complaint and calling upon him to show cause within 24 hours, as to why his training should not be terminated, as his conduct was such that it brought discredit not only to him as a student, but to the training centre as well. Pending further investigation into the charges, the appellant was suspended. On the following day, the appellant replied; he demanded that the charges against him should be precisely and clearly stated by giving the name of the complainant, her full address and other particulars. Strangely enough there was nothing in the letter protesting innocence. From what one can see, there was really nothing vague in the charges made. Reference to a college girl living close to the hostel was sufficiently specific; further the gravamen of the charge was the unworthy conduct as a student and it did not depend upon the fact whether it was one girl or another. There was, however, no denial in the appellant's reply of the offence of misbehaviour at all.

(3.) ON receipt of the reply, the Deputy Director, after taking advice of the Director of the Institute, sent for the appellant and confronted him with the letter alleged to have been sent by him by post to the girl. The appellant at first denied knowledge of the letter and also of the trespass into her house. He did not, however, stop there. He suggested the names of some trainees in the centre as the possible culprits. This was proved to be false on enquiry. Later, the appellant made an admission to the Deputy Director, the genuineness of which is not denied now, and stated that he had visited the house of the complainant on the 28th July as alleged by her. He, however, gave an explanation which has no substratum of truth behind it, in that the letter and his visit there is the course of exchanges of love between the particular girl and himself. This insinuation which has no factual basis only reveals the depravity of the appellant and the extent to which he can go. The appellant was then taken to the Director of the Institute on the 10th august, 1961 who again showed him the letter referred to above, But he completely went behind the admission before the Deputy Director. He repudiated his authorship of the letter and also denied any knowledge of the girl to whom it was addressed. But this plea need not detain us long as it is not now in dispute that the admission made by the appellant before the Deputy Director was free and voluntary and was also a truthful one. The Director of the Institute decided that he should take disciplinary action against the appellant. He terminated his training. This decision was communicated to the appellant by a letter of the Deputy Director dated 11-8-1961. The appellant was also directed to leave the hostel immediately.