P S BHRAMARAMBA DEVI Vs. REGISTRAR NAGARJUNA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The vindictive attitude of the members of the Enquiry Committee, constituted by the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-Nagarjuna University to enquire into the alleged incident that has taken place in the University Campus on 11-9-1994, who are compared next to the God, spoiled the bright career of a student and she has to fight the litigation for nothing for six long years. The entire teaching community has to bow its head in shame the way in which the members of the Committee conducted themselves in ruining the career of a student.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions are that the petitioner while studying 2nd year Law in Nagarjuna University during the academic year 1994-95, one Jayalakshmi, a co-student of the petitioner, was admitted into the University Health Centre with abdomen pain. When the petitioner and some other students had been to the University Health Centre on the question whether the patient has to be referred to Guntur General Hospital or not, an altercation seemed to have taken place between the duty doctor one Jimmy Rani and the students. Thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that, another student by name Jhansi Rani made a complaint to the Registrar of the University on the behaviour of the duty doctor on 12-9-1994 and as a counter-blast that duty doctor gave a complaint to the Registrar on 13-9-1994 stating that the petitioner, Jhansi Rani and Shoukat Ali shouted at her using indecent words and thereby obstructed her from discharging her duties. Perhaps, having come to know of the complaint of the doctor, the petitioner also filed her complaint on 14-9-1994. Unfortunately, the complaints given by Jhansi Rani and the petitioner did not see the light of the day. But, the Vice-Chancellor of the University, on the basis of the complaint given by the duty doctor, constituted an Enquiry Committee with six members, including one P. Bhaskara Rao, Reader in Law, who is training the budding lawyers and who is expected to know the procedures to be followed in a domestic enquiry, by his proceedings dt. 21-11-1994, to enquire into the alleged incident. The Convenor issued a notice to the petitioner on 9-11-1994 to appear before the Committee at 1.00 p.m. on 12-11-1994. On that day the petitioner having appeared before the Committee gave a representation signed by 19 persons and requested the Committee to examine all the 19 persons to find out the truth of the allegations made by the duty doctor. But, without even examining the duty doctor, at that stage, the Committee seemed to have submitted a preliminary enquiry report, recommending suspension of the petitioner and Jhansi Rani from the College, to the Principal, who in turn placed the petitioner and Jhansi Rani under suspension by his proceedings dt. 6-12-1994. This has naturally caused alarm in the minds of the staff as well as the students and while the staff as well as the students are on strike, demanding withdrawal of the suspension order, on the midnight of 31st December, 1994, the Principal declared holidays from 1-1-1995 to 17-1-1995. This again enraged the students and some of them seemed to have sat on hunger strike and it went on up to 7-1-1995. Thereafter, the petitioner went on making representations to all the authorities in the State without any result. Under those circumstances, the petitoner filed Writ Petition No. 3437 of 1995 before this Court to quash the disciplinary proceedings and the suspension order and permit her to continue her studies. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 21-8-1995 directing the respondents to furnish a copy of the preliminary enquiry report within two weeks from that order and the petitioner was given two weeks' time to submit her explanation. On receipt of the explanation the Disciplinary Committee was directed to complete the enquiry within four weeks thereafter, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and considering the explanation to be filed by the petitioner. Pursuant to these orders the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 21-9-1995 and she submitted her explanation on 29-9-1995. On 16-10-1995 the Convenor of the Committee directed the petitioner to appear before the Committee on 27-10-1995. As her father seemed to be on sick bed she gave a telegram requesting the Committee to adjourn the enquiry to 3-11-1995. On 3-11-1995 she appeared before the Committee and according to her, on a suggestion from the members of the Committee she sought for adjournment, under the impression that the matter will be settled amicably, to 20-11-1995 and again to 27-11-1995. On 27-11-1995 the Committee adjourned the enquiry sine die. This contention of the petitioner was seriously disputed by the University by stating that she sought for adjournment voluntarily and she did not co-operate with the Committee to go ahead with the enquiry. Believing the version of the Committee to be true, on 27-11-1995 while adjourning the enquiry no date was given to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Committee seemed to have met on 27-12-1995. As there was no notice of hearing to the petitioner, she did not appear before the Committee. On 28-12-1995 the petitioner having been worried about her future, seemed to have given a telegram to the Principal to direct the Committee to complete the enquiry forthwith. On 29-12-1995 when one of the members of the Committe, having seen her in the University Campus, directed her to appear before the Committee at 1.00 p.m. on the same day. But the petitioner, having not come to the University prepared to face the enquiry, made a representation on 30-12-1995 to the Convenor to fix a firm date for conducting enquiry and complete the same on the same day. Having received the representation the Convenor by his proceedings dt. 3-1-1996 found fault with the petitioner for not co-operating with the Committee to complete the enquiry and directed her to appear before the Committee on 10-1-1996. On 10-1-1996 the petitioner having appeared, filed another representation to furnish the charges levelled against her for holding domestic enquiry. Thereafter, the petitioner did not hear anything from the Convenor. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed C.C. No. 46 of 1996 to punish the respondents for not complying with the orders of this Court. This Court having recorded the statement of the counsel for the University that the Disciplinary Committee of the University would conduct and complete the enquiry within a period of two weeks from that date and, in fact, having noticed the delaying tactics adopted by the University in completing the enquiry, directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to attend the practical examination of Mute Court, and closed the Contempt Case on 9-2-1996. But, the solemn assurance given to this Court was again not implemented. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4035 of 1996 seeking a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to complete her Law course by permitting her to appear for 1st, 2nd and 3rd year B.L. examinations by declaring the orders of suspension dt. 6-12-1994 as illegal and void. She also filed an application seeking interim direction to permit her to write the examinations that are going to commence from 26-3-1996. This Court seemed to have ordered notice on admission in the Writ Petition. When the petitioner had been to University on 1-3-1996 to serve notice of hearing, she came to know that the Committee has submitted its final report on 16-2-1996 recommending expulsion of the petitioner from the College and the Principal in turn expelled the petitioner from 6-12-1994, the day on which she was suspended. In those circumstances, she filed the second Writ Petition No. 4639 of 1996 to quash the expulsion order passed by the Principal by issuance of Writ of Certiorari. She also filed W.P.M.P. No. 5658 of 1996 seeking direction to the respondents to receive examination fee and permit her to write the examinations suspending the expulsion order. In the above W.P.M.P. by order dt. 8-3-1996 this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to write the examinations and withhold the results until further orders. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another W.P.M.P. No. 20202 of 1996 seeking declaration of the results by the respondents and permit her to appear for supplementary examinations, in case she failed in any of the subjects in any of the three years. This Court by order dt. 14-8-1996 directed the respondents to declare the results within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Again, the W.P.M.P. seemed to have come up for hearing on 30-8-1996 and this Court while ordering notice to the Controller of Examinations to appear in the Court personally after two weeks, directed him to receive the fee from the petitioner for 2nd and 3rd year B.L. examinations, pending further orders. Pursuant to the said directions, the results of the petitioner were declared by the University on 13-9-1996. Now, both the Writ Petitions are listed for hearing before this Court.

(3.) As far as W.P. No. 4035 of 1996 is concerned, it outlived its purpose and no orders need be passed in the Writ Petition and it is accordingly dismissed.