Allowed

G.S. Dhinakaran v. the Registrar

Madras HC2 Mar 2015WP(MD)/1246/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court set aside a one-year suspension order imposed on a dental student via a writ petition. The court held the order was not supported by independent findings or reasoning and denied the petitioner due process. The matter was remitted for a fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned suspension order was set aside and the matter remitted to the disciplinary committee for a fresh enquiry within four weeks.

G.S. Dhinakaran Vs the Registrar — Education and Admissions | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 02.03.2015

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVICHANDRABAABU

¶6

Writ Petition (MD) No.1246 of 2015

¶7

and

¶8

M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2015

G.S.Dhinakaran

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Registrar,

¶13

Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University, Guindy, Chennai.

¶14

The Principal,

¶15

Raja's Dental College and Hospital, Thirurajapuram,

¶16

Kavalkinaru Junction,

¶17

Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶18

The Correspondent,

¶19

Raja's Dental College and Hospital, Thirurajapuram,

¶20

Kavalkinaru Junction, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶21

... Respondents

¶22

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned suspension order passed by the 2nd respondent in his proceedings dated 21.12.2014 suspending the petitioner for a period of one year w.e.f. 21.11.2014 and quash the same as unconstitutional and illegal and consequently directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue the petitioner study in the 3rd year BDS course without any break at Raja s Dental College and Hospital Thirurajapuram Kavalkinaru Junction Tirunelveli District.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.Anbarasu For 1^st Respondent : Mr.C.Karthick For Respondents 2&3 : Mr.M.Suri

¶24

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

¶25

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 21.12.2014 suspending the petitioner from the second respondent college for a period of one year with effect from 21.11.2014. Consequently, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to permit him to continue his studies in the third year B.D.S Course without any break at Raja's Dental College and Hospital, Thirurajapuram, Kavalkinaru Junction, Tirunelveli District.

¶28

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

¶29

parties.

¶30

3.The petitioner was the student of third year B.D.S Course in the third respondent college. The petitioner along with 14 other students in the third and second year B.D.S course of the same college were proceeded with disciplinary proceedings on an allegation that they indulged in committing ragging on juniors on 20th November 2014 around 10.30 p.m. The disciplinary committee in its meeting held on 09.12.2014 passed the impugned order imposing the punishment of suspension for a period of one year on the petitioner and imposed similar punishment of suspension ranging from two months to one year to others. As the petitioner is the only person, challenged the said order of punishment, this Court is not concerned with the order of punishment imposed on the other 14 persons.

¶31

4.Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not indulged in any sorts of ragging as alleged by the management, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of charges levelled against the petitioner as of now, for the simple reason that this court is otherwise satisfied that the impugned order passed against the petitioner is not in accordance with law and due procedure as required under law in view of the fact that the impugned order does not disclose any finding with reasonings as to how the charges levelled against the petitioner is proved.

¶32

5.Perusal of the impugned order would show that five charges were framed in respect of all the 15 persons out of which the petitioner is concerned with Charge No.A, Charge No.C and Charge No.E which are as follows:

¶33

“(A) Physical and Mental Torture: (By way of beating, kicking and using abused languages against them as well as their parents). The Senior students involved https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are

¶34

¶35

1.Chiranjeevi Kukmar.S.P (II BDS)

¶36

2.Charles.B (III BDS)

¶37

3.Dhinakaran.G.S(III BDS)

¶38

4.Mayil Kumar.S (II BDS)

¶39

5.Praveen Sundar.J (II BDS)

¶40

6.Akhil.M.R.(III BDS)

¶41

7.Senthoorapandi.M. (III BDS)

¶42

8.Thiruthulasi Devanandan (II BDS)

¶43

9.Vivek.S (II BDS)

¶44

10.Ashok Kumar.A (III BDS)

¶45

(C) Death Threat Warning: (The warning were given to Piraveen.M (I BDS), Vineet Sharon Immanuel (I BDS) and S.Sakthi Vignesh Raja (I BDS) and deadline was fixed on 19^th December 2014). The Senior Students involved are

¶46

1.Charles. E (III BDS)

¶47

2.Senthoorapandi M (III BDS)

¶48

3.Praveen Sundar.J (II BDS)

¶49

4.Dhinakaran.G.S. (III BDS)

¶50

(E) Based on the severity of illegal physical harassment and mental torture, it was decided by the Disciplinary Committee that the following students should permanently vacate the hostel (ST.Berchman's College Hostel for Boys) during their entire academic years.

¶51

1.Chiranjeevi Kukmar.S.P (II BDS)

¶52

2.Charles.B (III BDS)

¶53

3.Dhinakaran.G.S(III BDS)

¶54

4.Mayil Kumar.S (II BDS)

¶55

The senior students against whom the charges were framed were proved. The parents were explained about the declaration of ragging given by them during the admisssion time and their consequences. The Disciplinary Committee appraised them in detail.

¶56

It has been decided by the Disciplinary Committee members to unanimously award the following punishment (as per list attached) to streamline the offenders, discourage the practice of ragging and encourage the I year BDS students to study without fear and threat”.

¶57

6.After extracting those charges, the disciplinary committee simply gave a finding by stating that the charges were proved and the disciplinary committee unanimously is awarding the punishment on the petitioner as stated supra. Even in the preamble portion of the impugned proceedings, more particularly, reading the remarks made by the disciplinary committee, it is evident that the petitioner has denied the charges framed against him. When that being the factual position, needless to say that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the disciplinary committee ought to have conducted the enquiry by giving due opportunity to the petitioner as well to disprove those

¶58

¶59

charges. On the other hand, the disciplinary committee has gone by the statements of the junior students alone and imposed the punishment on the petitioner. I am of the view that the punishment of suspension of one year being a major punishment, a fair enquiry ought to have been conducted by giving due opportunity to the petitioner.

¶60

7.Accordingly, without expressing any view on the allegation made against the petitioner in respect of those charges referred to supra, I am inclined to set aside the order of punishment only on the reason that the same is not supported by any independent finding and reasoning based on evidence. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary committee of the respondents 2 and 3 for conducting fresh enquiry after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and pass final order thereafter. Such exercise shall be done by the respondents 2 and 3 through their disciplinary committee within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶61

8.The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to 3 are closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(T & P)

¶62

/True Copy/

¶63

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶64

¶65

The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University, Guindy, Chennai.

¶66

The Principal, Raja's Dental College and Hospital, Thirurajapuram, Kavalkinaru Junction, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶67

The Correspondent, Raja's Dental College and Hospital, Thirurajapuram, Kavalkinaru Junction, Radhapuram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

¶68

+1cc to Mr.S.R.Anbarasu, Advocate, in SR. No.9754.

¶69

+1cc to Mr.C.Karthik, Advocate, in SR. No.9799

¶70

+1cc to Mr.M.Suri, Advocate, in SR. No.9747.

¶71

sms Writ Petition (MD) No.1246 of 2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ msm 03.03.2015 p4/7c(IT) 02.03.2015

G.S. Dhinakaran v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.S. Dhinakaran v. the Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tmt. H.R. Thoulath Hanan, Vs the Holy Cross Collge

A. Karuppasamy, Vs the Member Secretary

Malhotrapandian, Vs the Supdt. of Police

E. Subbulakshmi Vs the Commissioner

A. Murugesan (Driver), Vs the Managing Director

M. Shanmuga Sundaram Vs the Metropolitan Transport