Reehana Hasmath v. The Registrar,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 27.03.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)No.3437 of 2019 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.2711, 2712 and 2713 of 2019 Reehana Hasmath ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Registrar, Dr.M.G.R.University, Chennai-32.
2.The Dean, Velammal Medical College, Hospital and Research Institute, Madurai.
... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned termination order passed by the respondent No.2 in Ref.No.VCAHS/2018/2009 dated 16.07.2018 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to readmit the petitioner into the college to attend the class of B.Sc., Cardia Care Technology Course.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah For R1 : Mr.C.Karthick For R2 : Mr.L.Shaji Chellan
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
2.The writ petitioner joined B.Sc., Cardiac Care Technology Course in the second respondent institution in the year 2017-2018. The writ petitioner along with seven other students came under adverse notice of the management. The allegation made against the students was that they had consumed liquor in the college hostel premises. Therefore, after conducting an enquiry, they were all terminated from the college. A proceeding dated 16.07.2018 was issued to that effect. The same is under challenge in this writ petition.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.(MD)No.20601 of 2018 questioning her suspension. The said writ petition came up for disposal before me on 12.02.2018. On the said date, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent that the writ petitioner has been rusticated from the college itself and therefore, the earlier writ petition became infructuous. With liberty to challenge the proceedings dated 16.07.2018, the said writ petition was withdrawn. 4.This Court posed a few questions to the learned standing counsel for the second respondent. The first question was whether the impugned order dated 16.07.2018 was communicated to the writ petitioner through registered post or courier or through e-mail. 5.The learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent replied that it was only pasted in the notice board. This Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned proceeding was not communicated to the writ petitioner.
6.This Court wanted to know whether the petitioner was issued with any memo containing the allegations against her. The only notice that is relied on by the second respondent is dated 14.07.2018, whereby the writ petitioner was called upon to attend an enquiry. In the said enquiry notice, there is no reference to any allegations against the writ petitioner.
7.This Court wanted the second respondent to produce the materials relied on by them to sustain the allegations against the writ petitioner. Again no such material is forthcoming. Even, according to him, a group of students was summoned for enquiry and thereafter thrown out from the institution. The learned standing counsel for the college would claim that the student had admitted their guilt and taken away their Transfer Certificate. But there is nothing on record to show that the writ petitioner admitted her guilt. It appears that other students had implicated the writ petitioner also.
8.This Court cannot go by the allegations made by the costudents. I have no hesitation to hold that there is zero material against the writ petitioner to sustain the allegations made by the second respondent.
9.The petitioner had joined the course in the year 2017 itself. We are now in March, 2019. The petitioner had already lost two years of her academic career. Even if according to the second respondent, the petitioner had committed some mistake, she has suffered enough.
10.Even the, minimum principles of natural justice have not been followed in this case. Hence, the impugned communication is quashed, as far as the writ petitioner is concerned. The second
respondent is directed to re-admit the writ petitioner in the first year. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be called upon to pay any extra fees. The incident in question will also not be reflected in the conduct certificate of the writ petitioner. 11.Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (WRIT AE) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) pnn +1 CC to M/s.L.SHAJI CHELLAN, Advocate ( SR-57067[F] dated 27/03/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.S.M.A.JINNAH, Advocate ( SR-57304[F] dated 28/03/2019 ) +1 CC to M/s.C.KARTHIK, Advocate ( SR-57430[F] dated 28/03/2019 ) W.P.(MD)No.3437 of 2019 27.03.2019 DS/ /SAR- (15.04.2019) 3P 4C