M KUGAPRIYAN Vs. REGISTRAR PONDICHERRY UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH originally, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition challenging the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.9.2008 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 19.9.2008 with a further direction to the first respondent to admit the petitioner in the V semester in this academic year (2008 -2009) and to permit the petitioner to write the university semester examinations in the present academic year 2008-2009, later the petitioner filed an application for amendment and now the relief that has been sought for by the petitioner is to quash the proceedings of the second respondent dated 24.1.2008 suspending the petitioner and the communication of the second respondent dated 4.3.2008 dropping the petitioner from the roll of the second respondent College and the proceedings of the first respondent dated 11.9.2008 and the consequential order of the second respondent dated 19.9.2008 and quash the same and for the direction to the first respondent to admit the petitioner in the V Semester in the academic year 2008-2009 and permit the petitioner to write the university semester examinations for the said academic year.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell are set out here-under:-(a) THE petitioner hails from a most oppressed section of the society. He enrolled himself as a student of B.Com (Foreign Trade) a three year degree course at Indira Gandhi College of Arts and Science, Kathirkamam, Puducherry in the academic year 2006-2007. THE petitioner along with three other students were suspended from the college by the second respondent by his proceedings dated 24.1.2008. It is stated in the said letter that a lecturer has reported that the petitioner along with three other students had misbehaved in the class room and the enquiry were under process and hence they were suspended with immediate effect. It has not been explained in the said letter as to what is the act of the petitioner, which amounted to misbehaviour.(b) THE second respondent also sent a letter dated 24.1.2008 to his father regarding his suspension. However, the mother of the petitioner had met the second respondent and pleaded with the authorities to show mercy. But the second respondent insisted that his father must meet them. On 21.2.2008 the petitioner's father came to his college and met the second respondent. THE second respondent insisted his father to advise the petitioner to tender an apology to his class teachers. THE petitioner obliged and tendered his unconditional apology to his class teachers on the very same day itself. While so, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 4.3.2008 has stated that the parents did not meet the class teachers on the matter pertaining to discipline of the petitioner and lack of attendance. It has been informed that the petitioner had been dropped from the roll of the College and he is not eligible for attending the University semester examinations. (c) THE petitioner's father again met the respondents and asked them to show mercy. On 22.7.2008, the petitioner's father gave a representation to the second respondent in this regard. THE second respondent sent a letter to the first respondent asking for certain clarifications. THE Assistant Registrar gave a clarification to the second respondent by his letter dated 11.9.2008 that in case of readmission, the petitioner will have to redo the course from the IVth semester, when he was removed from the rolls, provided he is not issued with the T.C by the College. (d) On 19.9.2008 the second respondent issued a letter to his father stating that the petitioner has to redo the B.Com course from the IV semester which would commence during January 2009. Hence the petitioner challenging those proceedings has come forward with the present writ petition for the relief set out earlier.

(3.) THE first and foremost submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. A. Stalin is that when the petitioner had been placed under suspension by letter dated 24.1.2008 alleging misbehaviour in the class room without elaborating the same, the College authorities ought to have framed charges against the petitioner and issued a show cause notice to him, conducted an enquiry and thereafter should have passed the final order. But, unfortunately, the college authorities did not follow the established principles of law and dropped the name of the petitioner from the roll of the College by proceedings dated 4.3.2008 and hence the same is liable to be set aside.