DEBADATA CHOUDHURY Vs. PRINCIPAL RAVENSHAW COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was a student of P.G. Final Year (Political Science) of Ravenshaw College, Cuttack, a premier educational institution of the State. He was elected as the President of the Students' Union for the term 1997 -98. On 5.1.1998, he putforth a list of grievances of the students for solution to the principal of the College, vide Annexure -1. A reply was given to the said letter on 6.1.1998. It has been alleged that on 19.1.1998 at 9.00 p.m., the boarders of Parija P.G.Hostel went to the house of the Principal and discussed about the problems faced by them. But, they were rebuked and were physically assaulted by the Hostel Superintendent and some lecturers. FIR was lodged before the Officer -in -charge, Malgodown Police -Station vide Annexure -2. It has also been alleged that the Principal abused the petitioner in rough language and threatened to spoil his career. A news item regarding the action of the Principal came in the local dailies. Two sets of charges were levelled against the petitioner by the opposite party vide Annexure -4. The petitioner submitted a reply on 24.1.1998 denying the charges Wade Annexure -3. Dr. D.K. Misra was appointed as convenor of the inquiry committee to enquire into the alleged charges and the petitioner was directed to appear and depose his defence regarding the charges along with written statement and other documentary evidence. The petitioner denied all the charges and stated that those are false and fabricated, vide Annexure -7. On 19.2.1998 an inquiry was held in most cavalier fashion, as alleged by the petitioner, and the members of the committee, who are the members of the staff of the college, submitted a report. It has been alleged that no witness was examined in support of the charges. No paper was also shown to the petitioner to enable him to adduce rebuttal evidence. On 26.3.1998, the petitioner was asked to apply for transfer certificate within seven days on the ground that he was found guilty of acts of indiscipline. According to the petitioner, he was victim of circumstances and the anguish of the Principal for no fault on his part. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. It has also been pleaded that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charges proved. Therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 26.3.1998 vide Annexure -8.

(2.) IN the preliminary counter affidavit filed by the Reader of Economics of the College, it is not disputed that the petitioner was a student of Final Year P.G. Class in Political Science and that he was elected as the President of the Students' Union. It has been alleged that after being elected, the petitioner tried to interfere with the College as well as the Hostel administration and that he did not allow other members of the Union to discharge their normal function. Though the next college election was over in the month of November, 1997, the new union has not been able to function because of the adamant attitude of the petitioner. It has also been stated that instead of conducting the normal function of the Union, the petitioner started threatening the Principal by submitting a charter of demand which were to be fulfilled within 48 hours. Though assurance was given by the Principal to fulfil the demands, the petitioner resorted to agitational method and started 'fast -unto -death' strike. However, the same was called off on the intervention of the Director, Higher Education. It has also been alleged that the petitioner, who was a boarder of the Parija P.G. Hostel, along with some of his friends, demanded money from the Superintendent of the Hostel for purposes which were not permitted under rules. He was not paying his hostel dues and has housed outsiders to remain in his room. When this was resisted by the Superintendent, the petitioner started misbehaving with him. In fact, the Superintendent 'offered to resign in protest. That apart, the petitioner locked up the hostel clerk and Assistant Superintendent inside the hostel office room on 19.1.1998 and demanded money from the Principal for hostel picnic. On intervention of the Principal and some members of the staff, the above persons were released from illegal confinement. FIR was lodged against the Principal and some other members of the staff. Consequently, the Principal also lodged FIR regarding the illegal confinement. Though the petitioner was asked the explain his conduct in confining the hostel staff, he refused to accept the charges levelled against him and threatened the Principal with severe consequence. On 16.1.1998, i.e., the next day, the Annual Athletic Meet of the College was being conducted. The petitioner led a procession of boarders into the sports field and snatched away the mike from the announcers and did not allow the events to be conducted. He started uttering slang language against the principal and teachers. Therefore, the Athletic Meet could not be conducted. The Staff Council resolved that stringent action should be initiated against the petitioner for his gross misconduct. Accordingly, an inquiry committee was set up. In spite of the fact that the incident occurred in presence of hundreds of teachers and students, the Principal, before inflicting any punishment, decided to give the petitioner a chance to defend himself. The charges levelled against the petitioner were communicated and he was asked to explain. The inquiry committee also asked the members of the Staff of the College and officers of the Athletic Club including students to submit their views on the charges levelled against the petitioner. All of them have submitted their written statement. After taking into consideration their statements, the inquiry committee found the petitioner guilty of illegal confinement of college staff and of disrupting the Annual Athletic Meet. The Committee recommended penal action to be taken against the petitioner. The recommendation of the inquiry committee was placed before the disciplinary committee of the college, which accepted the recommendation. This was also placed before the Staff Council. Therefore, the petitioner was asked to take transfer certificate by 2.4.1998, failing which he would be given compulsory transfer certificate. As the petitioner did not apply for transfer certificate, a show -cause notice was issued calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be expelled from the college. He submitted written explanation on 15.4.1998, which was rejected and he was expelled from the college with effect from 16.4.1998.

(3.) THE petitioner made the following demands :