Delhi High Court
Kumari Kajal Garg vs Bharti College And Anr on 11 December, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision: 11.12.2013
+ WP(C) No.471 of 2013 & CM No.914 of 2013
KUMARI KAJAL GARG
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Adv.
versus
BHARTI COLLEGE AND ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Adv. for R-
1
Mr. Mohinder Jeet Singh, Adv. for
R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (Oral)
The petitioner before this Court was a student of B.Com.(Hons.) of
respondent no.1 - Bharti College. Vide communication dated 14.9.2012, the
petitioner was required to present herself before the Inquiry Committee with
regard to electoral malpractices reported by Smt. Shobhna Sinha. However, the
copy of the report made by Smt. Shobhna Sinha was not annexed to the said
communication.
Vide response dated 18.9.2012, the petitioner requested the Principal of
the college to provide inquiry documents to her before the meeting of the Inquiry
Committee was held.
Vide letter dated 18.9.2012, the Principal of the College informed the
petitioner that the College had received a report on an incident of electoral
malpractices that took place in the computer lab, second floor at 3:00 p.m. on
11.9.2012 which involved misuse of her OMV card and an Inquiry Committee
had been set up to investigate into the incident. She was requested to appear
before the Committee on 25.9.2012 at 11:00 a.m. However, the communication
dated 18.9.2012 did not indicate what precisely was the incident of electoral
malpractices that had taken place on 11.9.2012 nor did it indicate in what manner
OMV card of the petitioner was misused.
Vide letter dated 21.9.2012 the petitioner again demanded inquiry
documents before the meeting and stated that she would attend the inquiry only
after getting the inquiry documents.
Vide communication dated 24.9.2012, the Principal of the College
responded to the petitioner's letter dated 21.9.2012, questioning her locus standi
in demanding the inquiry documents and further stated that a report of incident of
electoral malpractices that took place on 11.9.2012 which involved misuse of her
OMV card, had been received. This time also, the letter sent by the College to
the petitioner did not specify what precisely was the incident of electoral
malpractices which had taken place on 11.9.2012 and in what manner her OMV
card had been misused.
2. Vide impugned order dated 2.1.2013, the petitioner was informed that
based on the investigation conducted by the Election Committee of the College
and on the recommendation of the Governing Body had decided that she was
found culpable in case of Student Union Election Malpractices Committee on
11.9.2012 and therefore she should be fined Rs.1,000.00 and debarred from
attending College for one month. This communication also gave no indication as
to in what manner the petitioner had misused her OMV card or what precisely
was the malpractices alleged to have been committed by her on 11.9.2012.
Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby setting aside
the impugned letter dated 2.1.2013 (Annexure-A to the writ petition);
(b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the
Respondents to allow the Petitioner to attend here classes as usual;"
3. In my view, the respondent-College was duty bound to provide to the
petitioner a copy of the report lodged by Smt. Shobhna Sinha, which was
referred to in the letter dated 14.9.2012. On account of failure of the college to
supply a copy of the said report to the petitioner she could not have known what
precisely was the report made by Smt. Shobhna Sinha. Consequently, she was
not in a position to present her case, with respect to the report of Smt. Shobhna
Sinha before the Inquiry Committee.
As noted earlier, the College has repeatedly alleged in the
communications sent to the petitioner that she was involved in misuse of her
OMV card. However, no attempt was made by the College to inform the
petitioner as to in what manner the OMV card was misused by her. Unless the
petitioner knew how she was alleged to have misused the OMV card, she was not
in a position to place her case with respect to alleged misuse of OMV card before
the Inquiry Committee.
4. The respondent-College, in my view, breached the basic principles of
natural justice by not providing the report of Smt. Shobhna Sinha and not
informing the petitioner as to how she had misused her OMV card on 11.9.2012.
The order imposing penalty of Rs.1,000.00 on the petitioner and debarring her
from the College for a period of one month from attending classes, therefore, is
illegal and is liable to be quashed on this ground alone.
5. The petitioner has already completed her studies with the College and the
only issue now is of the penalty of Rs.1,00.00 imposed on her.
6. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner during
arguments that that the college has no competence to impose any monetary
penalty upon the petitioner, unless there are statutory rules of the University,
permitting the College to levy such penalty. However, I need not go into this
aspect of the matter since the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is otherwise
liable to be quashed on account of the failure of the College to observed
principles of natural justice.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of by
quashing the impugned communication dated 2.1.2013 issued by respondent-
Bharti College to the petitioner.
The record of inquiry which the learned counsel for the respondent-
College has produced during the course of arguments be returned to her.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.
DECEMBER 11, 2013/rd V.K. JAIN, J.
