Dismissed

Brian Jude Nathan v. the Registrar

Madras HC10 Aug 2011WP/16576/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a college's disciplinary decision to issue a transfer certificate to a student involved in a murder case and having low attendance. The court held that maintaining institutional safety and discipline overrides the student's right to continue studies when conduct is violent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no interference with release of Transfer Certificate sought by petitioner; connected miscellaneous petitions dismissed.

Brian Jude Nathan Vs the Registrar — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 10-8-2011

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.16576 of 2011 M.P.No.1 of 2011

¶6

Brian Jude Nathan ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Registrar,
University of Madras,
Chennai.
2. The Principal,
Patrician College of Arts and Science,
Canal Bank Road,
Gandhi Nagar,
Adyar,
Chennai – 600 020. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records from the second respondent dismissal order dated 1.7.2011 and quash the same and direct the second respondent to permit the petitioner to attend the classes for B.B.A. Course.

¶8

By consent of all parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

¶9

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the second respondent - management of a private College,

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶11

issuing compulsory transfer certificate to the petitioner on the ground of certain misconduct and seeking direction to the second respondent to permit the petitioner to undergo classes in B.B.A. Course.

¶12

The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

¶13

(a) Petitioner is a student of Patrician College of Arts and Science and an unaided minority College, situated at Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai-20, and he is doing second year B.B.A course. The second respondent College is affiliated with the first respondent University.

¶14

(b) It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was falsely implicated in a criminal case on 6.2.2011 in Crime No.309 of 2011 on the file of J8 Neelangarai Police Station, Chennai, for an offence under section 302 I.P.C. The petitioner filed Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2011 and obtained an order of bail from this Court by order dated 14.3.2011.

¶15

(c) According to the petitioner, he was not allowed to attend the classes by the second respondent from 22.3.2011 and therefore he sent a legal notice through his counsel on 28.3.2011. A reply was given by the second respondent stating that from 7.2.2011 petitioner has not attended the college and he was having only 31% of attendance from November, 2010 to March, 2011 i.e., for 4^th Semester.

¶16

(d) The petitioner claims that he is a sportsman, got more than 20 certificates and medals and from November, 2010 to 7.2.2011, due to his attending Sports events, he is entitled to get attendance for the actual dates of sports events and from 7.2.2011 to 22.3.2011 he could not attend the college because of the case registered against him in the J8 Neelangarai Police Station.

¶17

(e) On 6.4.2011, the petitioner again approached the second respondent and he was informed that he can get the transfer certificate and join in some other college as he is having a criminal case against him. Petitioner filed W.P.No.9326 of 2011 and prayed for a direction and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 22.6.2011 with a direction to the second respondent to pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks.

¶18

(f) Petitioner was suspended by the management on 26.4.2011 and he was directed to submit his detailed explanation so as to enable the second respondent to pass appropriate orders. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 23.6.2011 stating that he is innocent and he has not done any offence or mistake; that he has suffered a lot because of the false case; that the college management may permit him to attend the classes by revoking the

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

order of suspension; and that, he will not commit any offence in future.

¶21

(g) The college management viz., Disciplinary Committee considered the explanation and passed the impugned order stating that since the petitioner is an accused in a murder case and merely because it has happened outside the college campus, the Disciplinary Committee cannot simply close its eyes on such an incident and hence petitioner's continuation in the college is not conducive for the academic atmosphere in the college and safety of other disciplined students.

¶22

(h) The said order is challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the alleged involvement in the criminal case has happened outside the college and this Court in Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2011 having noticed the fact that the deceased party are unknown to the petitioner and his brother, who are the accused, and the deceased party only stopped the vehicle in which the petitioner and his brother were travelling and the deceased party are prima facie are the aggressors, the action of the second respondent management in giving compulsory transfer certificate to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner involved in the said criminal case is not correct. It is further contended that no enquiry was conducted by the second respondent before the impugned order was passed and if the petitioner was not having sufficient attendance in the 4^th semester, the second respondent may readmit the petitioner in third semester to re-do the course for the purpose of fulfilling the attendance requirement.

¶23

The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending as follows:

¶24

(i) Second respondent College is a Self-financing Minority Arts and Science College, not receiving any aid from the State Government and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable.

¶25

(ii) On 6.2.2011 a FIR in crime No.309 of 2011 was registered by the J8-Neelangarai Police Station, Chennai, on the ground that the petitioner stabbed the victim in connection with a roadside altercation and the victim succumbed to the injuries and therefore the petitioner was proceeded under Section 302 IPC, which came to the knowledge of the management through Newspaper reports as well as through the Investigating Officer. Thereafter the petitioner stopped attending the college without even informing the same to the second respondent management.

¶26

(iii) The observation made by this Court while considering the bail application is only for the disposal of the bail petition and his innocence can be proved only after the trial in the criminal case.

¶27

(iv) The petitioner absented himself and he was having only 31% of attendance in the 4^th semester and being a sports person,

¶28

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶29

the petitioner cannot claim any immunity from the disciplinary rules so far as the College is concerned. The petitioner has been given attendance for his participation in the sports events and even thereafter only 31% of attendance was calculated and including the said dates petitioner is having 31% of attendance. Actually petitioner attended classes for 19 days and 8 days have been treated as OD attendance and thus he has earned only 27 days attendance in the 4^th semester which comes to only 31.76%.

¶30

(v) It is also stated that even though he failed to attend classes from 7.2.2011, a communication came through a legal notice dated 28.3.2011 and in the earlier writ petition this Court directed to consider the explanation to be submitted by the petitioner.

¶31

(vi) An enquiry notice was issued on 9.5.2011 to conduct the enquiry on 16.5.2011 at 10.00 a.m. Petitioner and his mother came inside the room of the principal and the petitioner was not willing to appear for enquiry before the Disciplinary Committee and the petitioner's mother on 16.5.2011 orally pleaded for issuing TC and therefore no enquiry was conducted on the said date. Even thereafter, the petitioner has not come forward to appear for enquiry or to receive transfer certificate. Petitioner's past conduct was also put on notice to reply to petitioner's counsel notice sent on 2.5.2011.

¶32

(vii) In the month of October, 2010, petitioner involved in abuse of words with few 5^th semester students of B.Com in the college campus and students were threatened with flashed knife and the management called the petitioner and warned to correct his behaviour.

¶33

(viii) On 8.10.2010 the petitioner came with his brother to the college and gave an apology letter stating that he will not involve in any more trouble in future. Petitioner used to carry a knife and on earlier occasions also he was warned. Therefore continuing the petitioner in the college will affect the conducive functioning of the college and it will be detrimental to the safety of the other students. Hence the impugned order was passed.

¶34

Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit narrating the incident happened on 6.2.2011, which led to registration of the criminal complaint against the petitioner and his brother and subsequent grant of bail by this court. For the apology letter given earlier by the petitioner's brother it is alleged that a correction is made by the management in the bottom of the letter stating TC to be issued. Petitioner also denied the allegation that he indulged in violence in the college campus as well as denied the allegation that he threatened the students with knife. He has also stated in the reply affidavit that he will not indulge in unwanted activities inside the college or outside the college

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

and also stated that the petitioner's mother has not pleaded for issuance of TC.

¶37

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit and reply affidavit and heavily relied on the order of this Court made in Crl.O.P.No.6241 of 2011 dated 14.3.2011.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent as well as second respondent.

¶39

I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, first respondent and second respondent and also the pleadings.

¶40

A report about the petitioner, recorded by the Principal of the College on 8.10.2010 and the subsequent warning issued to the petitioner is filed at page 1 of the typed set of papers filed by the second respondent. Petitioner's brother gave a letter on 8.10.2010 to the Principal stating that the petitioner may be excused for his mistakes and in the bottom of the letter it is endorsed by the Principal that 'next time TC to be issued'.

¶41

The petitioner is named as an accused in Cr.No.309 of 2011 on the file of the J8-Neelangarai Police Station, Chennai, for an offence under Section 302 IPC and he is arrayed as one of the accused. Petitioner and his brother were let on bail by this Court on 14.3.2011 is established by perusing the copy of the FIR as well as the order passed by this Court. During the 4^th semester petitioner is having only 31% of the attendance including the other duty attendance granted for attending sports events. Petitioner was issued with a suspension order-cum-show cause notice on 26.4.2011 and he was asked to submit his explanation as to why he should not be expelled from the college.

¶42

The petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.9326 of 2011 and prayed for a direction to permit him to attend the classes for BBA course and to write the University examination to be held in April, 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 22.6.2011. This Court, noticing the lack of attendance i.e, 31% of attendance as against the minimum requirement of 50%, directed the petitioner to submit his explanation for the show cause notice dated 26.4.2011 and the second respondent was directed to consider the same and granted liberty to the second respondent to readmit the petitioner to redo his second year course for the purpose of fulfilling the attendance requirement. The second respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within two weeks. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an explanation on 23.6.2011 stating that he has not committed any offence and he will not commit any offence in future.

¶43

The Disciplinary Committee of the management considered the explanation of the petitioner and also directed the petitioner

¶44

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶45

to appear for an enquiry on 30.6.2011. The Committee asked about the past conduct of the petitioner regarding the incident happened during October, 2010, where a verbal altercation took place with VISCOM students outside the college and whether the petitioner indulged in violence. Petitioner has given a letter of undertaking on 8.10.2010 for good conduct in future and it was also noticed that he had agreed to take TC if found indulged in such activities next time. The petitioner said to have replied that it is a past conduct happened outside the college. The Disciplinary Committee of the College consisting of the Principal, Correspondent, Vice Principal, Head of the Department, and Classin-charge, took an unanimous decision and the operative portion of the decision reads as follows:

¶46

"5. The Committee is of the opinion that the student instead of addressing the charge levelled against him is trying to skirt the issues by taking into shelter that the earlier conduct is one inside the college and the present case is a false charge. Both the issues cannot be segregated. If the incident outside is not a criminal case, the student may be right and the college may not take into cognizance of the incident. The incident happened outside is a murder and the student admits that an FIR under Section 302 has been registered against him. The college simply cannot close its eyes on such an incident which exists there prima facie. The student has not come forward with any extenuating circumstances and the Disciplinary Committee is of the view that the student Brian Nathan Jude's continuation is not conducive for the academic atmosphere in the college and the safety of other disciplined students has to be given primary importance.

¶47

If the FIR in Cr.No.309 of 2011 on the file of J8 Neelankarai PS is perused, the student along with his brother has allegedly indulged in killing one Seenu for an altercation. In October, 2010 also the student has indulged in violence for an altercation with VISCOM students inside the college. From this it is evident that the student has a nature to indulge in violence on slightest provocation. To continue with such a student would endanger the safety of others. Under these circumstances, the Disciplinary Committee is of unanimous view

¶48

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶49

that the Student Brian Jude should not be continued in the college and he must be issued his Transfer Certificate and decides to issue the Transfer Certificate of the student Brian Nathan Jude II Year BBA student of the college to him."

¶50

Pursuant to the said decision taken it was unanimously resolved to discontinue the petitioner from the second respondent college. Thereafter the impugned order was communicated giving direction to the petitioner to come and collect the TC in the office of the second respondent College at the earliest.

¶51

Since the petitioner is having previous antecedent of indulging in violent activity and he tendered apology and at that time he was specifically informed that his future indulgence will lead to issuance of TC itself, is an intimation that the petitioner's behaviour inside the college is not proper. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is in possession of knife always and therefore the college has to look into the welfare of other students for maintaining conducive academic atmosphere and safety of others. The said decision having been taken by the Disciplinary Committee members unanimously, which is running the institution, the scope of reviewing the said decision is very limited. As directed by this Court, petitioner was already afforded an opportunity of submitting explanation. Petitioner is also involved in a criminal case and he is on bail till date.

¶52

The discipline of the students inside and outside the college came up for consideration before the Supreme Court and this Court in the following decisions:

¶53

a) (1991) 2 SCC 716 (Maharashtra State Board of S.& H.S.Education v. K.S.Gandhi);

¶54

b) (2003) 1 MLJ 644 (Senthil v. The Principal, SIVET College, Chennai);

¶55

c) 1988 WLR 343

¶56

(M.Murugan v. Director of Higher Secondary Education);

¶57

d) AIR 2000 Madras 431 (Ashok Kumar v. Director of Technical Education, Guindy);

¶58

e) 1996 WLR 341 (K.P.Jayapal Asan v. Vice Principal-incharge, Scott Christian College & Another); and

¶59

e) (2009) 4 MLJ 1048

¶60

(A. Maharaja v. Anna University)

¶61

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶62

In the decision reported in 1996 WLR 341 (supra), this Court in paragraphs 13 to 15 held thus,

¶63

"13. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted few decisions in support of his above contentions. He placed reliance on the decision reported in Murugan v. Director of Higher Secondary Education (1988 WLR 343). In the said decision in paragraph 8 the Court has observed as follows:-

¶64

"It is well settled by now that a student, so long as he behaves himself properly, in a disciplined way in other words, as a student ought to have, has every right to prosecute his studies. Such a right cannot be interfered with. As against this, should there be any act of indiscipline which is not conducive to the interests of the Institution, and which will pollute the educational atmosphere of the institution or the calm of the Institution, certainly, the school authorities have every right to see that such a student who would not behave himself in a disciplined way is expelled from the school. Apart from the fact that such an indisciplined student is not only an undesirable element who spoils his own future, his conduct and character will have deleterious effect on others as well."

¶65

The other decision on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the respondents is reported in Leo Framics Xavius v. The Principal, Karunya Institute of Technology (AIR 1993 Mad. 233), wherein the Court observed at paragraph 26 as follows:-

¶66

"As it is found on the facts that there was an enquiry satisfying the requirements of the principles of natural justice, this Court cannot interfere with the finding of the Enquiry Committee and the consequential order of expulsion passed against the petitioner. The plea taken by the first respondent that it is a private college and the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked by the petitioner against the said College is well founded. In as much as the principles of natural justice have been complied with, this Court has o jurisdiction to interfere with the

¶67

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶68

order of expulsion passed against the petitioner." 15. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the unreported Judgment of this Court in A.Ravichandran v. The Madurai Kamaraj University, rep. by its Registrar (W.P.No.1506 of 1991, Dt.27.2.1991) which has taken the same view and the same has been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.370 of 1991." 15. In the above said decisions it is held that a student in an educational institution is entitled to continue his studies only if he behaves like a student. Indiscipline inside/outside the campus cannot be tolerated to maintain dignity and safety of other students as well as institution. Though the petitioner was given a chance to correct himself on one occasion, he has not utilised the said opportunity. In the impugned order also petitioner is directed to get TC and by receiving the same he can pursue his studies in any other college. Therefore his right to continue his education is not totally affected, may be he is prevented from attending classes in the second respondent college.

¶69

On the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the order passed by the second respondent is just and proper and it does not require any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. This order will not preclude the petitioner from approaching the second respondent from reconsidering their decision and it is upto the second respondent to consider the said request and take a decision.

¶70

¶71

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶72

¶73

The Registrar, University of Madras,
Chennai.
1 cc to M/s. G. Thilakavathi, Advocate, Sr. 49388
1 cc to M/s.K. Bharathi, Advocate, Sr. 49316
1 cc to M/s. M. Ramamoorthy, Advocate, Sr. 49178
W.P.No.16576 of 2011
MP (CO)
kk 11/8

¶74

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Brian Jude Nathan v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brian Jude Nathan v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajah Muthiah Medical College Vs the Union Ofindia

S.Krishnakumar Vs the State of Tamilnadu

R.Kumaravel Vs Tamilnadu Maritime Board

A.Mohammed Sitheeq, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Muslim Educational Association Vs National Council of Teacher

J.K.K. Nataraja Dental College Vs Union of India