ORDER
1. The petitioner was a third year B. A. Philosophy student in the Pachaiappa's College, Madras, He also claims to be the General Secretary of the College Students' Union at the relevant time. On 15-9-1995 he was taking his examination in English in Hall No. 39. The examination time was between 9.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. After having entered the examination hall, the petitioner says, that at about 11.30 a.m., he heard some commotions in the place below the examination hall. Says the petitioner, that he apprehended the problem as relating to a student and as General Secretary he sought permission to go out and enquire into the matter. It turned to be a problem between the Watchman and a parent of one student and he therefore, returned to the examination hall. According to the petitioner one Professor Ramabushanam questioned his entry into the hall, but the petitioner was assaulted by the Professor. In a short while, the first respondent, Principal arrived at the scene and the petitioner was taken to the Principal's Room. According to the petitioner some other students also questioned the conduct of the Professor-and the Principal straightaway expelled the petitioner and suspended two other students pending further enquiry against them. The order of expulsion is said to have been put up in the Notice Board of the College. The writ petition is to quash the said order of expulsion dated 15-9-1995.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Principal of the College, it is stated that the petitioner was writing his answer paper in September, of the year. On 15-9-1995 in the morning sessions, English-I paper was taken by the students and in the evening sessions English-II paper was to be taken. The petitioner who attended the morning session at 9.30a.m. left the examination hall at 10.50a.m. without the permission of the Invigilators. The Rules relating to the examinations specifically state that no candidate should be allowed to leave the examination hall and even if they do so, they should be accompanied by an Assistant Superintendent or a member of the teaching staff of the College. When the petitioner left the examination hall, the answer paper was collected by the Hall Superintendent. The petitioner spent 15 minutes outside the hall and sought to return to the examination hall. The Hall's Superintendent refused to return the answer paper and thereupon the petitioner is said tohave argued with the Hall Superintendent and that as Secretary of the College Students' Union, he had some special privileges. The petitioner is said to have abused the Hall Superintendent with foul and filthy language. Two of his classmates, one D. Arunprakash and B. Vinayagam joined the petitioner in intimidating the Hall Superintendent. There was a commotion in the examination hall. The Chief Superintendent and Professor being Professor Ramabushanam, proceeded to the hall. The petitioner did not mind the Chief Superintendent and continued his argument with the Hall Superintendent in an intimidatory manner. The petitioner and his two colleagues called upon the other students to come out of the examination hall. It is at this stage that the Principal entered the hall and directed the petitioner and his two colleagues to come to the Principal's Room.
3. Four Hall Superintendents who were in the said Hall No. 39 have given reports requesting the Chief Superintendent to take action. The Chief Superintendent was asked to make an enquiry on the spot and submit a report. Since the petitioner was instigating other students to boycott the examination, the first respondent convened a meeting of the Heads of all Departments as well as the Discipline and Students' Welfare Committee. The meeting took place at about 12 noon and the petitioner was present. The first respondent made enquiries from all the Hall Superintendents and the Chief Superintendent. The petitioner was. asked about his conduct on the basis of the allegations made against him. The only answer of the petitioner was that as the Secretary of the College Students' Union he had a special privilege of leaving the hall and returning to the examination hall as and when it pleased him. At about 1.30 p.m. a decision was taken to expel the petitioner and the order was issued. Since the two other students did not leave the examination hall, they were only suspended from the College. It is pointed out that suspension of a student will still entitle him to write the examination whereas expulsion would deprive him from writing the examination.
4. A police complaint was lodged and the some was taken on file as Crime No. 1531/95 under S. 332, I.P.C.
5. The counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent refers to the report of the staff and the meeting held at the Principal's Room and the ultimate decision to expel the student. They also referred to Regulation IV of the Chapter-XXXIX of University Calendar Volume II -- Part-I, 1970, and it runs as follows :--
'If any student is expelled from an affiliated college, intimation of the fact of expulsion, with a statement of the reasons therefor, shall be given forthwith by the Principal, (a) to the parent or guardian of the student and (b) to the Syndicate; intimation to the Syndicate shall be accompanied by the transfer certificate of the student. The Syndicate on the application of the student or his parent or guardian may, after making such enquiry as it deems proper, deliver the certificate to the student with necessary endorsement or withhold it temporarily or permanently.'
The Principal had intimated about the expulsion of the student, and the same was forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner was informed that he could collect the Transfer Certificate from the Registrar of the University of Madras.
6. The main contention which has been urged before me is that the principles of natural justice have not been followed in making the order of expulsion. Secondary contention is that the first respondent wag having ill-feelings against the petitioner and was waiting for an opportunity to victimise the petitioner. A few instances have been cited in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In elaborating the first contention it is argued that no specific charge was framed and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to submit his explanation and the first respondent did not have sufficient materials to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had misbehaved in the examination hall. On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of the first respondent that the principles of naturaljustice are not the same in respect of the misconduct on the part of a student as compared with misconducts on the part of an employee. It is urged that different standards have to be adopted and the principles of natural justice cannot be encompassed in a strait-jacket formula. Once we come to the conclusion that the misconduct on the part of the petitioner is proved and the order of expulsion is justified, it is not necessary to go into the earlier instances which are of a routine type in the matter of a College Students' Union Secretary and the Staff Members.
7. On behalf of the petitioner three judgments are cited. The first is Board of H. S. & I. E., U.P. v. Chittra, : [1970]3SCR266 . In that case the petitioner was permitted to appear for the examination and later the examination taken by her was cancelled on the ground that she lacked attendance. It is in the above fact that the Apex Court observed that the non-issue of a show cause notice had vitiated the proceedings. The ratio is as follows (para 8):--
'Whether a duty arises in a particular case to issue a show cause notice before inflicting a penalty does not depend on the authority's notification that the person to be penalised has no defence but on the nature of the order proposed to be passed.'
Board of Technical Education, U. P. v. Dhanwantri Kumar, : AIR1991SC271 , is more or less or similar facts except that the Apex Court found that the notices served on the students were vague and imprecise.
8. Sundar, G. S. v. The Controller of Examinations, Madurai Kamaraj University 1992 W LR 52, is a judgment of this Court where the principles of natural justice have been gone into in a little more detailed manner. In that case, the results of VIII Semester examination were withheld by the authorities. When the petitioner approached the authorities as to why the results were withheld, the petitioner was asked to appear for an enquiry. At the enquiry the petitioner was forced to give a statement that he had committed a malpractice during the examination. It is to be noticed that during the examination no complaint was made and it is only at the time of publishing the results the authorities pointed out certain malpractices said to have been practised during the examination. These facts have to be borne in mind while considering the ratio of a judgment. The ratio is found in the following passage :--
'In my view, in this case, it cannot be said that the enquiry has been done fairly and the petitioner had an opportunity for making his defence. It is true that the scope of the power under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is in such matters limited and it is not sitting on appeal over the decision of the authorities. But it is open to this Court to consider the probabilities and circumstantial evidence and arrive at a finding that it is a reverse decision. As I have already stated, the alleged confessional statements on which reliance was placed by the University, in my view, cannot be accepted. This Court is aware of the proposition that in the matter of student of indiscipline, meticulous procedure ought not to be insisted upon. However, this is a case of cancellation of results of the petitioner for three years at one stroke, which in my view, cannot be done. So on the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice and the petitioner has not been given opportunity to defend himself by giving him the charges. Excepting catling him to meet and obtaining statements from him.'
9. As against the above line of decisions Mr. Vijay Narayan for the first respondent has cited a series of authorities pointing out that each case of indiscipline has to be dealt with on the facts of the case and uniform principles of natural justice cannot be adopted, in the case of a student's indiscipline. I do not propose to go into the facts of each case except to cite the following decisions. The first is C. D. Sekkilar v. Krishnamoorthy, : AIR1952Mad151 and paragraph No. 16 may be usefully referred to. In Bright Son Jose v. Madurai Kamaraj University, : AIR1982Mad79 , a Division Bench of this Court has said that where a student is caughtred handed by the Invigilantor while copying,the enquiry against the student does not callfor rigid and mechanical insistence of a full-fledged enquiry and the observance of theprinciples of natural justice may not be conducive for the effective functioning and preservation of the structure of on educationalinstitution. In Maharashtra State Board ofS.S.H.S. Education v. K.S. Gandhi, : [1991]1SCR773 , the apexCourt has pointed out the principles ofnatural justice which should be adopted in thecase of a student indiscipline. In Leo FrancisLaviour v. The Principal, Karunya Instituteof Technology, : AIR1993Mad233 . ThisCourt has referred to a large number of casesand it was quoted with approval a passage inRussell v. Duk of Norfolk (1949) 1 AER 109:
'The requirements, of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth.'
There is one other interesting passage in the judgment of Mohan, J. as he then was, in C. Rajendran v. Director of Higher Secondary Education (1989) 2 MLW 206. Learned Judge pointed out that it cannot be insisted that there must be a memorandum of charge, an enquiry and a finding arrived at like a Court of law or a judicial proceeding.
10. Guru Nanak Dev University v. Harjinder Singh, : AIR1994SC2591 is close to the facts of the present case. In that case while students were writing their examination, the flying squad inspected the hall and found that many students were having incriminating materials. On seeing the flying squad the (sic) complete choose in the examination hall. The apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court quashing the proceedings against the student and restoring the disciplinary action taken by the authorities.
11. It is thus clear that the facts of each case have to be borne in mind before we apply the principles of natural justice. I am clearly of the opinion in the case of students, being caught red handed in the act of indiscipline the one and only principles of natural justice which has to be kept in mind is whether the authorities have acted fairly and reasonablay and whether the students concerned had been prejudiced in any manner in explaining his side of the case. In this case, I have perused the records and the reports of the Chief Super-intandent and the Hall Superintandents and the minutes of the urgent meeting held at the Principlal's Room. The averments in the counter affidavit are borne out by the records. The Principal was faced with the situation that the entire examination was likely to be boycotted by the students if the petitioner had been allowed to remain in the examination hall. One can easily imagine the plight of hard working and regular students being deprived of the right to complete the examination and become successful. In the light of the above situation and in the face of unanimous opinion of the Invigilators and Staff members there is no reason why the conclusion should not be accepted. The only defence of the petitioner was that as College Student's Union Secretary he had a special privilege of going out of the examination hall and coming back at any time he chose. Such a right can never be coceded in favour of a College Students' Union Secretary or office-bearer. Discipline is the hall mark of any educational institution. In fact, it is the most needed quality in any citizen of this Country. I have no doubt in upholding the decision of the respondent and holding that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the procedure adopted by the respondents. In this view of the matter, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. There will however, be no order as to costs Consequently, W.M.Ps. are also dismissed.
12. Petition dismissed.