1. The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the committee dated March 10, 2004 dismissing appeal preferred by his father feeling aggrieved by the order of the Director, College of Engineering and Management, Kolaghat, dated October 28, 2003 expelling the petitioner by way of punishment imposed under provisions of the West Bengal Prohibition of Ragging in Educational Institutions Act, 2000, section 6.
2. Alleging that on the night of October 20, 2003 the petitioner along with five other students of the college indulged in ragging to six junior students of the college, proceedings were initiated against him and his companion students under provisions of the West Bengal Prohibition of Ragging in Educational Institutions Act, 2000.
3. After giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity to defend himself, and after making necessary inquiry, the authority found the petitioner and his companion students guilty of the charges of ragging, and recommended permanent expulsion of the petitioner from the college. Accordingly, the Director of the College issued the order dated October 28, 2003 expelling the petitioner from the college with immediate effect.
4. The five other companion students suffered the punishment of suspension for the rest of the academic session 2003-2004, with the option to seek fresh admission to the same class in July 2004, by giving an undertaking jointly with their guardians that they would exhibit good conduct and behaviour and should not indulge in any act of ragging in future.
5. While the petitioner's five companion students preferred one joint appeal, the father of the petitioner preferred an independent appeal on behalf of the petitioner. Section 7 of the Act provided for such remedy of appeal. The committee concerned rejected both the appeals.
6. While rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner's five companion students, the committee observed that though the punishment imposed by the Director was a lenient one, it was not inclined to enhance the punishment, since the future of the students of tender age was in question.
In the appeal preferred by the petitioner's father the committee noted,
“During examination of the wardens who were members of the inquiry committee constituted by the Director, emphatically stated that the reports on incident occurred on 20.10.2003 was submitted to the Director after thorough investigation and inquiry. They also submitted before the committee that Sk. Nur Alam had belligerent background. In the past the said Nur Alam was fined with warning for gross misconduct and damaging college property in the night of July 28, 2003 on the recommendation of the college disciplinary committee. Sk. Nur Alam then furnished an undertaking that he would exhibit good conduct in the college. The undertaking was jointly signed by his father. The wardens also stated that subsequently it was revealed that the guardians signature was affixed by someone else impersonating his father. In spite of that undertaking at a quick interval of three months (approximately), the said Sk. Nur Alam indulged into a further act of gross indiscipline, physical assult and mental harassment of some first year students on 20.10.2003”
The committee gave the petitioner a personal hearing, he denied the charges before the committee. After considering the materials on record and the submissions made by the petitioner, the committee held,
“But the allegations against him have been corroborated not only by the report of the inquiry committee constituted by the Director of the said college but also on the spot inquiry held by the committee on January 19, 2004. It may not be out of place to mention here that during the deposition on 28.1.2004 Sk. Nur Alam in his written statement admitted that while furnishing the undertaking on the earlier occasions which was required to be signed jointly by him and his father, he actually forged the signature of his father by affixing his signature on the undertaking.”
The committee further held,
“All the members of the inquiry committee formed by the Director unanimously place before the committee that the activities of Sk. Nur Alam in this college has polluted the academic environment of the college and they apprehend that further continuance of the said Sk. Nur Alam will lead to breakdown of discipline and vitiate the normal academic atmosphere of the college.”
7. Advocate argues that the authorities discriminated against the petitioner in the matter of imposition of punishment. According to him punishment imposed by the head of the institution, and confirmed by the committee, is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct. He argues that question of the petitioner's future was not considered by the authorities-though it was considered while imposing punishment on the five other students.
8. I am unable to accept the contentions. Provisions in section 6 of the Act provide that if the allegation of ragging is found to be true, then the only punishment that is to be imposed is to expel the student from, the educational institution. Exactly such punishment has been imposed in the present case. Provisions of the Act did not contemplate imposition of any lesser punishment. Hence simply because the authorities were soft with the other guilty students on whom a lenient punishment was imposed, though it was contrary to provisions of the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to allege discrimination.
9. As to the question of imposition of disproportionate punishment, I am of the view that on the facts of the case it cannot be said that punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the proven misconduct. From the findings of the committee, quoted hereinbefore, it is clear that his past conduct was far from satisfactory. He indulged in various misconducts in the past and was punished. Unfortunately nothing could stop him committing the grave offence inviting the only punishment provided by the Act. This being the position, I am unable to accept the contention that a lesser punishment ought to have been imposed on him.
10. With a view to apprising me of the approach given by the Courts to the menace of ragging in educational institutions, Advocates for the respondents have given me the Apex Court decision in WP (Civil) No. 656 of 1998 (Vishwa Jagriti Mission through President v. Central Govt., through Cabinet Secy.) dated May 4, 2001, and a Single Bench decision of this Court in W.P No. 17799(W) of 2003 (Sourav Chatterjee v. State of W.B) dated December 2, 2003. I appreciate the attempt, and agree with their views that a clear message should be sent to all concerned about the need to be firm and strict in cases involving ragging.
11. For these reasons I find nothing wrong with the decision of the committee affirming the order of the head of the institution expelling the petitioner from the college.
12. Advocate for the petitioner says that the college declined to issue the transfer certificate. To this Advocate for the college says that his client never declined to issue the transfer certificate in accordance with the relevant rules. He says that it is the petitioner who declined to collect the transfer certificate containing the necessary remarks in the conduct column.
13. In my view, the transfer certificate should be issued by the college to the petitioner, if according to rules and regulations he is entitled to get a transfer certificate. I only say that at the time of issuing the transfer certificate the college shall keep in mind that at a very young age the petitioner has already suffered a very harsh punishment.
14. I hope that the college will issue the transfer certificate in such a manner that the future of the petitioner is not totally closed and he is not driven out of the main stream of the society. I believe that the college will use the required wisdom for the purpose.
15. With the above observations, I dismiss the writ petition. There shall be no Order for costs in it.
16. Copy of this order duly authenticated by A.R (C) or A.C.O shall be given to Advocates for the parties, on usual undertakings.
17. Urgent certified xerox copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties if applied for.
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.:
Writ petition dismissed.
A.D