R SESHAGIRI RAO Vs. UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the aggrieved students of the 1 st respondent University against the order of rustication passed by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings, vide Ref.No.R/Acad/2002, dated 11-1-2002 under which all the petitioners were rusticated with immediate effect.

(2.) Subsequently, by way of amendment, the petitioners sought for quashing of the Proceedings, vide Lr.No.UH/R/ ACAD/ 2002, dated 31-3-2002 issued by the Executive Council of the 1st respondent University in appeal modifying the order passed by the 2nd respondent and reduced the period of rustication to two years in respect of some of the petitioners and to one year in respect of others.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners 1 to 6 are prosecuting their Research Study in various departments. Petitioner No.7 is doing M.Phil., in History, while the petitioners 8 and 9 are prosecuting their Post-Graduation in History and Anthropology respectively. It is stated that some of the petitioners are office bearers of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Students Association (for short 'the Association'), which is stated to have been formed to protect the interest of unprivileged members of the Society. It is stated that there are number of hostels and separate wardens are in-charges of the respective hostels and in respect of one of the hostel, one Dr. Ratnam was the in-charge. In respect of the same hostel, a second warden was appointed and while allocating the duties among the two wardens, the work of sanitary and hygiene work was entrusted to Dr. Ratnam, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. According to the petitioners, the said allotment of work has effected the sentiments of the students belong to that community and therefore, a representation was made to the Chief Warden bringing to his notice the sentiments of the students of that community on 9-1-2002. According to the petitioners, the Chief Warden, gave appointment to the students on 10-1-2002 at 4-30 p.m. On 10-1-2002, the petitioners along with other students went to the Chief Warden building to meet him. The Chief Warden was in his chamber along with some other Wardens including the one by name Dr. Rajashekar, who also incidentally belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. By the time the students went to the Chief Warden building, the Chief Warden had summoned the security staff. It is further stated by the petitioners that when they represented the matter to the Chief Warden, he refused to listen the students, saying that it is an internal matter of administration and he need not answer to the students. When the students were agitated, the security staff took him inside his office and bolted the room. Another warden, who was present, tried to obstruct the students, when they were raising slogans asking the Chief Warden to come out. There was some scuffle and they pacified the students and asked them to wait. Meanwhile, police arrived and they told them that they will look into the matter and asked them to disperse. Accordingly, the petitioners have dispersed. It is further stated that it appears that during the scuffle the warden fell down, but did not receive any injuries. The incident is termed as physical violence. Further, it is stated that no complaint was lodged against the petitioners either by the Chief Warden or by the other Warden, but only the Registrar lodged a complaint before the Police, naming 11 persons, basing upon which a crime was registered. In fact, at the time of hearing, the learned Counsel stated that no complaint was lodged on 10-1-2002, but the complaint was lodged only on 11-1-2002. It is also further stated that no action was taken by the University authorities when the students belong to Scheduled Caste community were insulted and humiliated. It is further stated that a complaint was given by the Association under the SC and ST Act on 10-1-2002 against the Chief Warden, which was registered as Crime No. 22 of 2002. On 11-1-2002 the police officials came to the Hostel and asked for the petitioners and others to come to the Police Station to enquire into the complaint made by the Association. According to the petitioners, the University gave a complaint against the petitioners and others on 11-1-2002. The police, who took the petitioners and others to the Police Station, detained the petitioners 1 to 4 and later arrested the petitioner No.6; in connection with the Crime No.21 of 2002, registered under Sections 147, 148,452,427, 334 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, and read with Section 3 of the PDPP Act, the other petitioners have surrendered before the concerned Judicial First Class Magistrate and were enlarged on bail on 21-1-2002. It is further stated that while the petitioners were in the police custody, the University authorities tried to serve the impugned orders of rustication passed by the 2nd respondent, but due to the intervention of the police, the said orders were not served on the petitioners. But, however, the petitioners were subsequently enlarged on bail on 17th and 21st January 2002. Even after they were enlarged on bail, the petitioners were not allowed to enter the University. But, however, even after entering the hostel premises, they found that the rooms, which are allotted to the petitioners 1 to 6, were found locked by the Chief Warden. Even with reference to the other petitioners also, the independent cupboards provided to them, were also kept under lock by the University authorities. But, however, only with reference to one Vijay Kumar, who tendered apology, the order of rustication passed against him was modified. It is stated that the Association filed an appeal before the Executive Council, as provided under the provisions of the University of Hyderabad Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). Later, the individuals - petitioners also preferred appeals. Though the appellate authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioners for which a reply was given by the petitioners denying the charges levelled against them, without conducting any further enquiry and without providing any copies of the documents that are relied upon, the appellate authority also passed orders, confirming the order of rustication, but, however, confining it for a period of two years with reference to petitioners 1 to 6 and one year in respect of the petitioners 7 to 9. It is further stated that it appears on 11-1-2002, there was a representation by the Chief Warden and others complaining that the Chief Warden was chased and beaten. Similarly, the other Warden Mr. Rajashekar; Mr. V. V.Sharma, Deputy Chief Warden and others were also assaulted by the petitioners including one Security Officer, by name Victor Kumar and they made a complaint to the 2nd respondent. Similarly, the Joint Action Committee of the Staff and also other organisations have also made representations condemning the alleged action of violence in the University Campus and therefore, the 2nd respondent constituted a committee of five members, who are the Deans of various Departments to conduct enquiry. The said Committee recorded the statements of various persons and submitted a report on the same day and the 2nd respondent also passed the impugned order of rustication on that day itself. According to the petitioners, the 2nd respondent-Vice Chancellor did not act according to his own, but was surrendered to the pressures created by the various organisations, which made representations for action against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, even the said representations have suggested the punishment by way of rustication and therefore, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order of rustication.