Mootham, C.J. - (1.) THESE are appeals from three orders of Mr. Justice Mehrotra dated 14 -3 -1955, dismissing three petitions u/Art. 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) IN the year 1954 Virendra Kumar Agarwal, the Appellant in Appeal No. 338, was a student of the Shyam Sunder Memorial Intermediate College, Chandausi, and Keshan Lal and Jitendra Prakash Rastogi, the Appellants in Appeals Nos. 339 and 340, were students of the Hind Intermediate College, Sambhal. The three Appellants sat for the Intermediate Examination in March, 1954. On 8 -5 -1954, before the results of the Examination were announced, the Principal of the Hind Intermediate College was assaulted by several men including, it is alleged, the three Appellants. The Principal received a number of injuries and made a report at the Police Station Sambhal. The Station Officer informed the Superintendent of Police who at once got in touch with the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad, and on the following morning, that is on the 9th May, the District Inspector of Schools went to Sambhal and had an interview with Sri B. D. Kala, the Principal of the Hind Intermediate College and also, it appears, with the police authorities. After making certain enquiries the Inspector sent a report to the Education Department. On 25 -3 -1954, the Inspector made an order rusticating the three Appellants for three years, and at about the same time the Board of High School and Intermediate Education made an order (which is not before us) withholding the examination results of the three Appellants. The Appellants then filed three petitions in this Court in which they challenged the legality of the orders of rustication and the validity of the order of the Board withholding their examination results. Those petitions were dismissed by the learned Judge. Appeals were then filed against the orders of dismissal but were dismissed by this Court on 21 -1 -1957, for default. On the application of the Appellants the appeals were subsequently ordered by the Court on 7 -11 -1957, to be restored to the list for hearing and we have now heard argument on them. We are of opinion that these appeals must be be allowed. The order of rustication was made by the district Inspector of Schools in purported exercise of his powers u/R. 96, Cl. (r) of the Education Code. That clause reads thus: (r) A head of an institution may punish a boy in a manner suited to the offence, e.g., by detention after school or college hours or expulsion from the institution. If in his opinion the fault committed is of such a nature as to deserve a severer punishment, he should report the circumstances to the Inspector, stating for what period the boy should in his opinion be debarred from read -mission to any institution, and the Inspector may then pass an order of expulsion only from the institution or for rustication for a specified period.
(3.) A note attached to this rule makes it clear that rustication means that a body will not be admitted to any institution until the expiry of the period of rustication and that it is accordingly a more serious punishment than expulsion which merely debars his readmission to the institution from which he is expelled. Now there can be no doubt that it is the Principal of a college who is primarily responsible for the maintenance of discipline in that college, and he has been given a wide power of punishment including that of expulsion.;