ORDER
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Campus politics has always been a menace to our educational institutions. Time is overdue that academicians and educationists and administrators and all concerned are to see that the students are free from this evil which is slowly and steadily making an inroad into our educational system. Despite the perennial natural of those problems they have hitherto attracted little attention.
2. Educational institutions are spiring boards for academic excellence and not for political exercise. Though right to education is not stated expressly as a fundamental right, it is implict expressly and flows from the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the broad and expansive interpretation given by courts. Right to education has been treated as one of transcendent importance. It has fundamental significance to the life of the individual and the society at large. Articles 41, 45 and 46 of the Constitution of India show the importance attached to it by the founding fathers of our Constitution. Supreme Court in Unni-krishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., AIR 1993 SC 2178, held that the right to education is implicit in and flowed from the right to life guranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It transfigures the human personality into a pattern of perfection, through a synthetic process of development of body, the enrichment of mind and sublimation of emotion and illumination of spirit. Supreme Court, while explaining the Mohini Jain's case, AIR 1992 SC 1858, held that the right to education which is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 must be construed in the light of the directive principles in Part IV of the Constitution.
3. Right to get education in schools and colleges uninterrupted by political or external influence or forces is also a right which flows from Article 21, the right to life and personal liberty. Right to life is a compendious expression for all those rights which court must enforce because they are basic to the dignified enjoyment of life. It extends to the full range of conduct which individual is free to pursue. In a college or school there may be students with no political allegiance, spending whole time for academic pursuit. There may also be students from families holding different political ideologies. But college or school is the temple of education where we look for moral principles, gentlemanly conduct and intellectual ability for academic excellence, and not for imposing political ideology on others.
4. In the instant case, the college with which we are concerned is college having a student strength of more than 3400. On October 30, 1995, at about 11.30 a.m. class room A2.2 witnessed an incident where two groups of students having different political ideologies were fighting each other in the class room. The class was in full swing. Six students entered the class room and manhandled some of the students attending the class. In the melee it is reported that even the teacher who was teaching the students was not spared.
5. The Principal on the same day received complaint signed by 16 students, stating that some of the students including additional respondents 3 to 5 entered the class room while the studies were going on and manhandled certain students. Students who were manhandled have also filed complaint on the same day before the Principal of the College. Principal on 31-10-1995 constituted an Enquiry Commission consisting of five teachers to enquire into the incident occurred on 30-10-1995 in the college classroom. Enquiry Commission met on 2-11-1995 decided to issue notices to all the accused students as well as to the complainants. Ext. P1 is one such notice issued to the additional fifth respondent by registered post acknowledgement due. All the students were directed to be present for enquiry to be conducted on 8-11-1995. However, the enquiry could not be conducted on that date, because of Kerala Bandh. The enquiry was adjourned to 17-11-1995. Almost all the students including the complainants appeared before the Enquiry Commission, except additional respondents 3 to 5. Twelve of the 15 complainants gave evidence to the effect that all the accused persons were involved in the act of violence that took place on 30-10-1995 in class room A2.2. Enquiry Commission also received a statement from Sri. S. Siddharthan the class teacher which revealed that the teacher was also not spared in the melee. In the preliminary enquiry, three of the accused students, Honemon, Sibi. T., and Manojkumar appeared and partly denied the charges. Manojkumar admitted before the Commission that he had beaten some of the students because they had earlier attacked him. Honeymon appeared and levelled charges against the complainants stating that they had beaten him. Enquiry Commission came to the conclusion that the incident happened on 30-10-1995 was a pre-planned and intentional one.
6. On the basis of the preliminary findings, the Commission decided to issue show cause notices to six students including additional respondents 3 to 5. Ext. P4 is one of the memo of charges issued to Addl. 5th respondent. Similar memo of charges were issued to other accused students as well, by registered post acknowledgment due. Commission again met on 8-12-1995 and the accused students were summoned one by one. Additional fifth respondent appeared and informed the Commission that he was not served with memo because of change of address. Commission reported that he behaved in a hottempared manner and did not answer the questions put to him. He tried to show a written statement which the Commission did not accept. He behaved in an impertinent and arrogant manner towards the Commission. Manojkumar appeared. Even though he had in the preliminary enquiry admitted that he had attacked his fellow students, he has nothing to reply to the charges levelled against him. Additional respondents 3 and 4, one Siby, T.R. and Honemon, R. appeared before the Commission. All of them were reported to be non-cooperative with the Commission. They denied the charges. Commission put several questions to the accused students, and gathered evidence. They also perused the statements made by two teachers as well as from a section of the students. A complaint was received from teacher stating that she was prevented from entering the college campus on 30-11-1995 by one V.K. Raju, University Union Councillor and others. The said complaint was also considered by the Commission. This charge was also put to the student. He denied the charge. Commission noted the fact that the said incident happened while he was under suspension. Commission perused the eyewitnesses report dated 4-12-1995 submitted by Sri S. Siddharthan, the teacher who was taking the class at the relevant time. From the statements received from the students and the evidence collected, Commission came to the conclusion that even though all the accused were found to be guilty of charges levelled against them, additional respondents 3 to 5 were found to be most guilty of the charges. Commission was of unanimous opinion that action should be taken against all the accused persons so that violent activities in the college campus could be controlled in future.
7. Ext. P5 is the final report submitted by the Enquiry Commission. Report was placed before the College Council. College Council consisting of 17 teachers including the Principal came to a unanimous decision to expel additional respondents 3 to 5 from the College. However, it was decided as a gesture of grace that they would be given an opportunity to accept their transfer certificate voluntarily, if they are ready to do so before 22-12-1995. It was also decided, if they did not accept the transfer certificate voluntarily their transfer certificates would be sent to the University. Ext. P6 is the decision dated 13-12-1995 taken by the College Council to that effect.
8. On 18-12-1995 Principal received a letter from additional 4th respondent requesting for TC from the college for attending TKMM College, Nangiarkulangara. An application for TC was also reported to be received by the University on 19-12-1995 from the student. Accordingly, the University issued Ext. P12 order dated 19-12-1995 according sanction to the additional 4th respondent to be admitted in the TKMM College, Nangiarkulangara during 1995-96. Principal of the S.N. College was directed to issue TC to the students. Principal forwarded the TC to the additional fourth respondent on 22-12-1995 in his home address. Principal also addressed the University vide her letter dated 23-12-1995 stating that TC has already been forwarded to the additional fourth respondent.
9. While so, with the support of a political party, the expelled students staged a dharana in front of the college, so as to cancel the order of explusion. They obstructed the students' entry into the college campus. It is also alleged that they absued girl students. Petitioner also produced Ext. P9 in O.P. No. 2342of 1996 to show that students are resorting to strike with, the active support of a political party. Because of illegal obstruction caused by certain .students including additional respondents 3 to 5, petitioner filed O.P. No. 340 of 1996 for police protection. This Court was pleased to issue an interim direction and directed the Superintendent of Police to go into the various complaints raised by the Principal.
10. A statement was filed by the Superintendent Police. In the statement it is reported that in the night of 16-1-1996 the agitating students and their followers criminally trespassed into the house of one Purushothaman who is the Malayalam Professor of the College and damaged the front glasses and light of his car and also broke the speedometer and broke lights of his scooter. Police also registered a case as Crime No. 12 of 1995 of the Muhamma Police Station, under Sections 447,427 and 34, IPC. The case is being investigated by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muhamma. It is also reported that another incident occurred in the house of Smt. Sherly, lecturer in the same college who is residing in front of the SN College. On 16-1-1996 some miscreants came to her residence, thrashed the glass panals of the windows and severely damaged the scooter of her husband. It is reported to be retaliatory action against the steps taken by the college Principal. A case was registered as Crime No. 16/96 under Sections 143, 147 - 149, 447 and 506(ii) of the IPC on 17-1-1996. The same is under investigation.
11. The Vice-Chancellor of the Kerala University earlier received a complaint dated 20-12-1995 from additional fourth respondent, a University Union Councillor, stating that he is innocent and he was kept under suspension along with five other students illegally. It was also stated that he was compelled to sign an application form for permission for inter-collegiate transfer under coercion and duress and that he is being victimised. He requested the University to allow him to continue his studies in the college, Vice-Chancellor ordered an enquiry.
11A. The Standing Committee of the Syndicate on Student Discipline then met on 15-1-1996 and decided to constitute an enquiry committee consisting of four Syndicate members with regard to issue of TC to additional respondents 3 to 5. Principal received a communication from the Controller of Examinations evidenced by Ext. P10 dated 17-1-1996 stating that an Enquiry Committee constituted by the University will visit the College on 24-1-1996. Principal was requested to be present in the college. She was also directed to inform additional respondents 3 to 5 to be present in the college at It a.m. on 24-1-1996 with their parents/guardians. On receipt of the said communication Principal wrote to the Vice-Chancellor evidenced by Ext. P11, doubting the competency of the said Committee. But the Principal stated that since the members of the Committee are members of the University Syndicate, she would extend all co-operation to the Committee during its visit to the college. However, Principal did not inform the students with regard to the visit of Enquiry Committee since the students were already expelled from the College.
12. Enquiry Committee constituted by the University Syndicate visited the college on 24-1-1996. Principal explained the position to the Committee. Committee perused the copies of the interim and final reports prepared by the college Enquiry Commission and also the decision of the college council to expel the students, and also the action taken by the college authorities in the issue of TC to additional respondents 3 to 5. Committee also perused the complaint submitted on 18-1-1996 by additional respondents 3 to 5 as well as certain students before the Vice Chancellor. The Committee came to the conclusion that the Principal was evasive to the questions of Committee relating to the exonerating of three students including one who pleaded guilty at the preliminary enquiry. The Committee also took exception to the conduct of the Principal in not intimating the students of the visit of the Committee. Committee felt that there has been unjustifiable haste on the part of the college authorities in sending the TC of Sri V.K. Raju to his home address. Committee also concluded that there was over anxiety to get rid of Sri V.K. Raju, a University Union Councillor and a leader of the students, the college authorities chose to resort to an unjustifiable haste. Committee concluded that in view of the absence of any allegation against Shri V.K. Raju from a considerable section of the complainants, in view of the violation of natural justice in not allowing Sri V.K. Raju to defend himself at the time of enquiry, the admission of the Principal to the effect that the notices sent to him returned unserved, and finally in view of the manipulations resorted to get the sanction of the University for Raju's inter-collegiate transfer, the action of the Principal in issuing the transfer certificate to Sri. V.K. Raju be cancelled and Principal be directed to allow the student, Sri. V.K. Raju to continue his studies at S. N. College, Cherthala. Committee expressed the opinion that the approach of the college Commission was to end the career of a few students to create an atmosphere of fear amongst the students rather than to mend their career. The Committee therefore recommended that the action taken by the Principal S.N. College in issuing the compulsory transfer certificate to Manu Wilkson and Jyothi Krishna, R. be annulled; to order that the transfer certificate received from the college be returned forthwith; and to instruct the Principal, S.N. College, Cherthala, to allow the students, viz., V.K. Raju, III D.C. (Economics), Manu Wilson III D.C. (Botany) and Jyothi Krishnan, R. I PDC to continue their studies at S.N. College, Cherthala. Committee also concluded that their opinion shall not be a bar for conducting a fresh enquiry if the college authorities so desire in accordance with the accepted norms, rules, regulations and procedures.
13. On the basis of the above mentioned report, the Vice Chancellor ordered a fresh enquiry in the matter by a Commission consisting of the Principal, S.N. College, Cherthala, a senior Professor of the College, convenor of the Standing Committee on Student Discipline, Sri. K. V. Devadas, Member Syndicate and with the Registrar as Convenor/Member Secretary of the Committee. Vice Chancellor also ordered till the enquiry report is ready, the students, Manu Wilson, Jyothi Krishnan and Raju, V.K. may continue as external students and they were permitted to take their examinations in the S.N. College, Cherthala. Aggrieved by the report of the Standing Committee of the Syndicate as well as the decision taken by the Vice-Chancel for to conduct a fresh enquiry the Principal has apporached this Court.
14. The main contention raised by counsel for the petitioner was that the Syndicate or Vice Chancellor has no jurisdiction to conduct an enquiry under the provisions of the . Kerala University Act, Statutes or Ordinances into the internal affairs of the college, especially in the matter of student discipline in an affiliated college. According to counsel for the petitioner, under the Kerala University First Statutes, Chapter 2, Statute 3, the Vice Chancellor may if he thinks it necessary, nominate any person or persons to inspect and report on the teaching, equipment and general condition of any institution or college maintained or recognised by or affiliated to the University or any hostel. The said provision does not enable the Vice Chancellor to constitute an enquiry committee in the matter of disciplinary proceedings taken by the Principal of the College against students. It is also stated that under Statutes 21 of Chapter 24 of Kerala University First Statutes, in every college, the Principal shall be the head of the college and shall be responsible for the internal management and administration of the college. The Principal also took exception to the various statements made by the Enquiry Committee against her in its report.
15. Counsel for additional respondents 3 to 5 in the affidavit accused the principal for not taking any action against certain students on the basis of complaints filed by them. Eventhough the incident is admitted, they have different version. It was stated that there was some scuffle between the students of ABVP and AISF which swiftly ended due to the intervention of the teacher. It was alleged that the action is taken against them on the basis of a complaint raised by students having , political sympathy of RSS ad BJP organisations. It was alleged that the enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. It is their case that the Principal pressurised V.K. Raju to apply for transfer. It is alleged the Principal without showing a benign and maternal attitude pursued her totalitarian instinct of suppressing the student movement.
16. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is stated that the University Syndicate as well as the Vice-Chancellor have got the power to constitute an enquiry committee. Vice-Chancellor constituted the Committee in exercise of his powers under Section 10(13) of the Kerala University Act, 1974. It is also stated since S.N. College, Cherthala is an institution affiliated to the University in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala University Act, 1974 and Statutes and Ordinances made thereunder Section 5(xxii) of the Kerala University Act, 1974 confers power on the University to make inspection of affiliated colleges and on issue such direction as the University may deem fit. Reliance also was placed on Ordinance 8 of Chapter III of the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978 to contend that respondents 1 and 2 are fully justified in appointing an Enquiry Committee.
17. I heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the University as well as learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5, and perused the Enquiry reports and the enquiry proceedings conducted by the College. Section 23 of the Kerala University Act enumerates the powers of the Syndicate by which the Syndicate has got power of general Superintendence and control over the institutions of the University, and to exercise supervision and control over the residence and discipline of students and also to arrange for and direct the investigation into the affairs of private colleges to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency, for ensuring proper conditions of employment of members of their staff and payment of adequate salaries to them and in case of disregard of such instructions to modify the conditions of affiliation or recognition or take such other steps as it deems proper in that behalf. In order to sustain the action of the Syndicate, reliance was placed by counsel for respondents 1 and 2 on Statute 5 of Chapter 6 of the Kerala University First Statutes stating that the 'Syndicate shall under Clause (xx) of Section 23 of the Act can direct investigation provided if it is satisfied that there is a prima facie case for such investigation, or if a complaint in writing is received from any of the teachers or students or the managing council or governing body of a private college upon any matter relating to that college, or if it is so required by the Senate. I am of the view that this particular statute does not authorise the Syndicate or Vice-Chancellor to make an enquiry or investigation with regard to the action taken by the College authorities in the matter of discipline of students. Statute 5 specifically refers to Section 23(xx). Section 23(xx) is extracted below:
'Subject to the provisions of this Act and Statutes, the executive powers of the University including the general superintendence and control over the institutions of the University shall be vested in the Syndicate and subject likewise the Syndicate shall have the following powers, namely: (xx) to arrange for and direct investigation into the affairs of private colleges to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency for ensuring proper conditions of employment of adequate salaries to them, and in case of disregard of such instructions to modify the conditions of affiliation or recognition or take such other steps as it deems proper in that behalf.'
The investigation referred to in Statute 5 is with regard to the affairs of private colleges, to issue instructions for maintaining their efficiency for ensuring proper conditions of employment to members of their staff and payment of adequate salaries to them,, etc. and not with regard to the discipline of students.
18. Counsel for the University also referred to Ordinance 8 of Chapter III of the Kerala University First Ordinances, 1978 to contend that Syndicate has got power to conduct an enquiry if a complaint is made by a student of his explusion from an affiliated college. I am of the view that the said provision does not enable the Syndicate to sit in judgment over the decision taken by the Principal of a college expelling student, in exercise of his inherent power. Ordinance 8 does not invest any appellate power on the Syndicate or Vice Chancellor. The said provision does not authorise a student to file appeal against his expulsion from the college, but only to file an application for obtaining TC in which case the Syndicate can deliver the certificate with necessary endorsement or withhold it temporarily or permanently, after making such enquiry as it deems proper. In other words, on expulsion of a student as per Ordinance 8 the only course open to the Syndicate is to deliver the TC with necessary endorsement or withhold it temporarily or permanently.
19. Statute 20 of Chapter 24 of the Kerala University First Statute, 1977 states that every college shall have duly constituted College Council properly representing the teaching staff to advise the Principal in the internal affairs of the College. It shall consist of all Heads of departments or lecturers in charge of departments other than heads of departments and not less than two members of the teaching staff elected by the members of the teaching staff, from among themselves. Statute 21 prescribes that in every college the Principal shall be the head of the college and shall be responsible for the internal management and administration of the college. There is no provision in the Act or Statutes authorising either the Vice Chancellor or the Syndicate to sit in appeal over a decision taken by the Principal with regard to internal management and administration of the college. On the guise of exercising general power of superintendence or supervision, the Vice Chancellor or the Syndicate cannot sit in judgment over a decision taken by the Principal of a private college in the matter of its internal management and administration. It is the primary responsibility of the Principal of a College to see that discipline is maintained in the college. It is his inherent power by the nature of office which she or he holds. In the Almanac of S.N. College for the year 1995-96 it is stated that in the matter of discipline, irregular attendance, insubordination to teachers indifference in class, habitual mischief-making, obscenity in deeds or words are sufficient reasons for suspension or dismissal of a student from the college. It is also provided that the Principal is the final authority in the interpretation of the college bye-laws and he reserves the right to frame and enforce rules governing the conduct of the students in the class rooms and on the campus. Students arc bound by the said Almanac, That also highlights the position of a Principal vis-a-vis a college.
20. The word 'discipline' as such is not defined either in the Kerala University Act or in the Statutes, or Ordinances. In common parlance discipline may be a state of order maintained by training and control; a particular system of regulations or conduct, instructions and exercise designed to train to proper conduct or action. But ii' it is juris-prudentialty examined it brings forth something more. 'Obedientiaest legis essentia.' Obedience is the guiding force to sustain the law, rule, regulation or custom. It is that force we call it as discipline. The Principal of a college or Headmaster of a School is holding a pivotal position in maintaining college or school. While considering the importance of a Headmaster of a school, a Full Bench of this Court in Aldo Maria Patroni v. E. C. Kesavan, 1964 Ker LT 791 : (AIR 1965 Ker75 at p. 77) held :
'The post of the headmaster is of pivotal importance in the life of a school. Around him wheels the tone and temper of the institution; on him depends the continuity of its traditions, the maintenance of discipline and the efficiency of its teaching.'
The function of the Headmaster in maintaining the internal discipline is sacrosanct. It is this saintliness that makes the master-pupil relationship different from master-servant relationship in industrial law.
21. A Division Bench of this Court in Thampan v. Principal, Medical College, 1979 Ker LT 45 : (AIR 1979 Ker 171) held as follows (paras 2 and 3):
'These provisions only enable the Syndicate to exercise powers of supervision and control under certain circumstances and conditions specified in them. But they do not in our view in any way destroy the authority and jurisdiction inherent in the Principal of a College, as the head of the institution to deal with matters affecting the discipline of the College. That is inherent in the nature of his authority and the performance of his functions.
The inherent right and the juasi-parental authority of a teacher to proceed by way of disciplinary action against a pupil under his charge has been well recognised over the years, and we should think it is ingrained in the habits of thought and philosophy of our country.'
22. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Unni Raja v. Principal, Medical College, Trivandrum, ILR (1983) 2 Ker 754 : (AIR 1983 Ker 200) held :
'The head of an educational institution like the Principal occupies a pre-eminent position and at the same time, now-a-days, an unenviable one. He is answerable to the authorities and to the public for the discipline in the institution. Time was when his authority was never questioned. With passage of time, when educational institutions became the arena of activities by political and apolitical forces, there was a deterioration of values cherished for long and an invasion on his powers. Still it is necessary to give unto him what is his.'
The Division Bench concluded that the essence of the matter js that the head of the institution should in law be presumed to possess an inherent right to do such acts as are necessary in his opinion to maintain discipline in the institution. This right is incapable of an exhaustive identification. To limit it within defined confines would be to erode into his authority and fetter his discretion. To deny this right to the head of the institution would be to sound the death-knell of discipline in the institution which is already a casuality, by the combination of diverse forces, from withinand from without.
23. The Supreme Court in the decision reported in Hira Nath Mishra v. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, AIR 1973 SC 1260 held (at p. 1262 of AIR):
'that thus the teachers and Headmasters are in loco-parentis to all the students -- male and female.'
The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S.Gandhi,(1991)2SCC7I6: (1991 AIR SCW 879) held (para 15 at p. 896 of AIR SCW):
'Teacher occupies pride of place next below the parents and he/ she imparts education and discipline the students. On receiving salary from public exchequer he/she owes social responsibility and accountability to disciple the students by total dedication and sincere teaching.'
24. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Arun Kumar v. Vikram University, AIR 1982 Madh Pra2I7 held (at p. 218 of AIR):
'In the interest of maintaining proper discipline in Educational Institutions, it was necessary to strengthen the hands of Head of Institutions and to arm them with sufficient powers so that those who are keen to study and improve their careers should not be the victims of a handful of persons who may spoil the academic atmosphere by indulging in anti-social activities.'
25. A Division Bench of this Court in Headmaster, Poikav High School v. Murali, AIR 1995 Ker 21 had occasion to consider the position of a Headmaster of a school. While considering the case of suspension of a student, the Division Bench held (at p, 29 of AIR):
'It is the opinion formed by the Headmaster that is the primordial resource for initiating action against a pupil under Rule 6. It is his wisdom alone that prevails over all other considerations. It is the voice of the Headmaster who has constant commanding vigil over all his wards that counts when aquestion of suspension or dismissal of a pupil arises.'
26. Whatever may be the difference of opinion between the students in the matter of political ideologies those are matters not to be brought into the college campus or to the class rooms lest it may affect the rights of other students whose prime consideration may be academic excellence. I have already found that they have a right to have uninterrupted education without any political interference, which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
27. Winston Churchill, late Prime Minister of Britain, once said in his book 'My Early Life' that 'Headmasters have powers at their disposal with which Prime Minister has not yet been invested.'
28. In the instant case, the Principal of the College acted on the basis of the complaints received from students including girl students. Principal constituted an Enquiry Commission consisting of five teachers of the college of which three teachers are Heads of various departments of the college. They conducted a detailed enquiry giving notice to all the students. Questions were put to each of the accused students, who were present. They have also perused the statement received from two teachers and from a section of the students. They have also taken note of the statement made by the teacher who was taking the class at the relevant time as well as from other teachers, They also took note of the manner in which the accused students behaved towards Commission. They came to a unanimous decision that strict action should be taken against the accused students who resorted to violent activities in the class room. The decision taken by the Enquiry Commission was placed before the College Council consisting of 17 Professors including the Principal. It was the unanimous decision of the College Council that additional respondents 3 to 5 should be expelled from the College. But as a gesture of grace they allowed the students to leave the college after getting TC voluntarily. Subsequently, some of the students including the University Union Councillor and leader of students Federation of India, approached the Vice-Chancellor and Syndicate members and at their instance a committee was constituted by the Syndicate. Committee has submitted a report to the Vice-Chancellor. Committee appointed by the Syndicate came to the conclusion that the College did not conduct a proper enquiry. According to the Committee, Enquiry Commission appointed by the college, was biased. There is no material in this case to conclude that the Principal or Professors of the college were in any way biased. The finding that the Enquiry Commission violated the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. I have perused the enquiry report of the Enquiry Commission constituted by the college authorities as well as the files. I am of the view that the college authorities have given ample opportunity to the students and conducted the entire proceedings in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice.
29. A learned single Judge of this Court in Sudheer v. Headmistress, H.S., Panoor, 1975 Ker LT 834 held :
'A pupil against whom disciplinary action has been taken by the head of an educational institution cannot insist that principles of natural justice should be strictly complied with. There is a substantial difference between an enquiry in a disciplinary action against a civil servant and that in a disciplinary action against a pupil of an educational institution. When in the former strict compliance of the principles of natural justice is imperative, in the latter if the pupil has been given a fair chance to answer the charges that is sufficient. The question is whether there has been fair play. If the head of an educational institution had not in any way acted unfairly there is no reason why the action taken cannot be sustained. In this case pupils were informed of the charges against them. Then an enquiry was conducted by a staff committee. The pupils participated in the enquiry and gave statements. The decision was taken with the approval of the staff council. The pupils' guardians were informed of the action proposed to be taken. Only thereafter the pupils were dismissed. This is more than sufficient compliance with the principles of naturaljustice in a disciplinary action against pupils by the head of an educational institution.'
30. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Suvarna Board Mills, AIR 1994 SC 2657 held (at p. 2658 of AIR):
'It is well settled that natural justice cannot be placed in a strait-jacket; its rules are not embodied and they do vary from case to case and from one fact situation to another. All that has to be seen is that no adverse civil consequences are allowed to ensue before one is put on notice that the consequence would follow if he would not take care of the lapse, because of which the action as made known is contemplated. No particular form of notice is the demand of law. All will depend on facts and circumstances of the case.'
31. Therefore the conclusion of the Enquiry Committee constituted by the Syndicate that there has been violation of principles of natural justice by the Enquiry Commission appointed by the college authorities cannot be sustained on the basis of the above mentioned legal principles.
32. The finding of the Enquiry Committee that there has been unjustifiable haste on the part of the college authorities in sending the TC to V.K. Raju cannot also be sustained. It is pertinent to note that the Enquiry Commission appointed by the college has taken a decision that unless and until TC is received by the students before 22-12-1995, they will be treated as expelled students. It is evident from the file that Sri. V. K. Raju voluntarily requested for TC before the said date. The statement of Sri V. K. Raju that it is under coercion and duress that he applied for TC cannot be sustained. It is afterthought to suit his convenience. The finding of the Enquiry Committee that there has been over anxiety to get rid of some of the leaders of the students and that the college authorities chose to act in unjustifiable haste is a statement without any foundation. It is unfortunate that the Committee has opined that the approach of the Enquiry Commission consisting of college Professors has to end the career of a few students to create an atmosphere of fear and not mend their career. Such a statement is never expected from the members of an august body.
33. Therefore I am of the view that the college authorities acted strictly in accordance with law and there is no illegality of infirmity in the decision taken by the Enquiry Commission which was upheld by the College Council. 1 have found that Vice-Chancellor and the Syndicate have no jurisdiction under the Kerala University Act, the Kerala University First Statutes, or the Ordinances to sit in judgment over the decision taken by the College Council or the Principal in the matter of students' discipline which on the basis of various judicial pronouncements is an inherent right of the Principal of a College. It is also worthwhile to note that the Supreme Court in various decisions reiterated that in the academic matters even the Courts should be slow to interfere. The best Judge is the person at the spot. It is always safe to leave these matters especially in the matter of discipline of students, with those authorities rather than substituting views and opinions of others. The only realistic approach is to leave it to the visdom of the Principal and the teachers of the concerned institution. Even assuming that the Vice-Chancellor or Syndicate has got any general supervisory power over the discipline of students, I am of the view that this is not a fit case where they should have interfered with the decision taken by the College Council and the Principal. The punishment has already been imposed by the College authorities on three students. It is for them to consider as to whether time should be extended for the expelled students to receive TC voluntarily or not; or to think of a lesser punishment. I leave it to the wisdom of the Principal of the College and to the teachers of the institution.
34. Ext. P13 is quashed and original petitions are allowed. Respondents 1 to 4 in O.P. No. 340 of 1996 are directed to give adequate and effective police protection to run the college without any interference.