Praveen Basnet vs State Of Sikkim And Ors

Sikkim High Court

Praveen Basnet vs State Of Sikkim And Ors on 14 December, 2021

Bench: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan

                THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
                                 (Civil Extra Ordinary Jurisdiction)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, JUDGE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                W. P. (C) No. 11 of 2021

               Praveen Basnet,
               Son of Shri Mohan Singh Basnet,
               Resident of Middle Gyalshing,
               P.O & P.S Gyalshing,
               West Sikkim.                                            .....     Petitioner

                           Versus

       1.      State of Sikkim,
               Through the Chief Secretary,
               Government of Sikkim,
               Gangtok - 737101.

       2.      Education Department,
               Through the Additional Chief Secretary-
               cum-Principal Secretary,
               Government of Sikkim,
               Gangtok - 737101.

       3.      The Principal,
               Sikkim Government College, Gyalshing,
               Gyalshing - 737111.                   ..... Respondents

                                               and

                                W. P. (C) No. 12 of 2021
               Pravin Sharma,
               Son of Shri Khara Nanda Sharma,
               Resident of Aarigoan,
               P.O. - Langang & P.S. Gyalshing,
               West Sikkim.                                            .....     Petitioner
                           Versus
       1.      State of Sikkim,
               Through the Chief Secretary,
               Government of Sikkim,
               Gangtok - 737 101.
                                                                                            2
            W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2021 Praveen Basnet vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with
            W.P. (C) No. 12 of 2021 Pravin Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with
            W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2021 Lok Nath Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.with
            W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2021 Nakul Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.




2.   Education Department,
     Through the Additional Chief
     Secretary-cum-Principal Secretary,
     Government of Sikkim,
     Gangtok - 737101.

3.   The Principal,
     Sikkim Government College, Gyalshing,
     Gyalshing - 737 111.                  ..... Respondents

                                    and

                   W. P. (C) No. 13 of 2021
     Lok Nath Chettri,
     Son of Shri Abi Keshor Chettri,
     Resident of Upper Hathidunga, Rinchenpong,
     P.O. Rinchenpong and P.S.- Kuluk,
     West Sikkim.                         ..... Petitioner

             Versus

1.   State of Sikkim,
     Through the Chief Secretary,
     Government of Sikkim,
     Gangtok - 737101.
2.   Education Department,
     Through the Additional Chief Secretary
     -cum-Principal Secretary,
     Government of Sikkim,
     Gangtok - 737101.
3.   The Principal,
     Sikkim Government College, Gyalshing,
     Gyalshing - 737111.                   ..... Respondents

                                       and

                   W. P. (C) No. 14 of 2021
     Nakul Sharma,
     Son of Shri Ghana Shyam Sharma,
     R/o Aarigaon,
     P.O.- Langang and P.S. Gyalshing,
     West Sikkim.                                                   .....       Petitioner
                                                                                                3
                    W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2021 Praveen Basnet vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with
                    W.P. (C) No. 12 of 2021 Pravin Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with
                    W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2021 Lok Nath Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.with
                    W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2021 Nakul Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.




                    Versus

1.      State of Sikkim,
        Through the Chief Secretary,
        Government of Sikkim,
        Gangtok - 737101.
2.      Education Department,
        Through the Additional ChiefSecretary-
        cum-Principal Secretary,
        Government of Sikkim,
        Gangtok - 737101.
3.      The Principal,
        Sikkim Government College, Gyalshing,
        Gyalshing - 737111.                   ..... Respondents


     Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:

     Mr. Debasish Banerjee, Mr. Madhukar Dhakal, Mr. Sunder
     Basnett and Mr. Krishna Bhandari, Advocates for the Petitioners.

    Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Yadev
    Sharma, Government Advocate, Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Assistant
    Government Advocate and Mr. Zigmee Bhutia, Standing
    Counsel, Education Department, for the Respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                     J U D G M E N T (O R A L)

(14.12.2021)

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. W.P.(C) No. 11 of 2021, W.P.(C) No. 12 of 2021, W.P.(C) No.

13 of 2021 and W.P.(C) No. 14 of 2021 are being disposed of by this

common judgment.

W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2021 Praveen Basnet vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 12 of 2021 Pravin Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2021 Lok Nath Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.with W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2021 Nakul Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.

2. The writ petitions have been filed by four students of the

Sikkim Government College, Gyalshing (College), who challenges their

expulsion orders all dated 19.02.2021 bearing identical reference no.

276/SGC/GYAL/EDN/W/2021 (the impugned expulsion orders).

3. The petitioners were pursuing their Bachelor of Arts Degree

from the College. Praveen Basnet was a student of B.A. (Political

Science Honours). Pravin Sharma was a student of B.A. (Sociology

Honours). Lok Nath Chettri was a student of B.A. (English Honours). Nakul

Sharma was a student of B.A. (Physical Education Honours).

4. The petitioners allege that although the College started

functioning, its infrastructure was inadequate to meet the requirements;

it did not offer streams like science and commerce; and it did not have

an academic environment.

5. The petitioners took their grievances before various

authorities who gave them certain assurances. However, since no

progress was made, a video clip was prepared highlighting the

infrastructural deficiencies of the College and uploaded in social

media platforms. Show cause notices were issued alleging that a press

conference was held by them on 19.11.2020 within the College

premises. The petitioners replied to the show cause notices clarifying

that they had prepared a video clip and not held a press conference.

According to the petitioners, there were no further communications

thereafter.

6. The petitioners allege that on 02.02.2021, they along with other

students of the College met the Respondent no. 2 regarding their

grievances. Although they sought for an appointment with the Minister

in charge, the meeting could not take place. On 05.02.2021, they were

arrested. The petitioners alleged that the allegations in the FIR were

false. They were released on 06.02.2021. On 06.02.2021, some students

submitted a written complaint at the Sadar Police Station against the

respondent no.2 for alleged misbehaviour. After the petitioners were

released on bail, they held a press conference giving details of the

assurances given by the State Government on 19.03.2020 and till the

time of their arrest and release. On 07.02.2021, some other students filed

yet another complaint against the respondent no.2. Thereafter, on

17.02.2021/18.02.2021, the respondent no.3 asked the father/guardian

of the petitioners to be present in his office at 2 p.m. along with the

petitioners for having violated the rules and regulations of the College.

The petitioners along with their relatives went to the office of the

respondent no.3 where they requested the authorities to take them

back.

7. On 19.02.2021, the petitioners were expelled. On

02.03.2021, the counsel of the petitioners served a legal notice to the

respondents. Under such circumstances, the petitioners have sought for

quashing of the impugned expulsion orders as well as the decision

taken by the General Body Meeting held on 10.02.2021. 6

8. The respondents no.1, 2 and 3 have filed their counter-

affidavits. It is contended by the respondents that the impugned

expulsion orders are the culmination of several failed attempts aimed

at ensuring that the petitioners and other students of the College

maintain discipline as expected of them. They assert that despite

several instances of misconduct on the part of the petitioners, the

respondents have condoned them with the hope that the petitioners

would mend their ways. However, emboldened by the lack of stringent

action against them, the petitioners on 02.02.2021 not only entered the

State Secretariat at Gangtok without permission of the authorities but

also threatened, attempted to assault and browbeat the respondent

no.2. Pursuant to which he was compelled to lodge the FIR. It is

contended that the petitioners were made aware of the rules and

regulations published in the prospectus of the College which are critical

for the maintenance of discipline. The petitioners were aware of the

rules and regulations and the consequences of flouting them. Attention

was drawn to rules 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 16. It is alleged that the

petitioners in the month of February 2020 had uploaded a false and

derogatory post in Facebook questioning the legality and authenticity

of the College's accreditation by the National Assessment and

Accreditation Council (NAAC). An explanation was sought for by the

Principal on 12.02.2020 where they misbehaved with the College

authorities. A meeting of the Disciplinary Committee was held on

19.02.2020 and certain decisions taken. According to the averments in

the counter-affidavit, the students realized their mistake and corrected

their post and they assured the college authorities that they shall not 7 W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2021 Praveen Basnet vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 12 of 2021 Pravin Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2021 Lok Nath Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.with W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2021 Nakul Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.

repeat their mistakes in future. With regard to their misbehaviour with

the College authorities, the students expressed their desire to meet

them for further discussion and clarification and the matter was

forwarded to the College for information and action. On 19.11.2020,

without any discourse with the College authorities and their consent,

the petitioners held a press conference and circulated disparaging and

defamatory contents amongst the media personnel including the

social media outlets regarding the progress of construction activities of

the College while giving an ultimatum that construction should be

completed within three months. It is the respondents' case that the

petitioners have violated the rules and thus, they were served with a

show cause notice on 24.11.2020. Further, on 26.11.2020, a new

Disciplinary Committee for the period 2020-2022 was constituted

comprising of all Heads of Departments (HODs) and faculties of the

College as members of the Committee. Praveen Basnet, Pravin Sharma

and Lok Nath Chettri submitted their reply to the show cause notice on

26.11.2020. Nakul Sharma did not submit his reply on 26.11.2020. On

30.11.2020, the Disciplinary Committee resolved to ask Praveen Basnet,

Praveen Sharma and Lok Nath Chettri to submit an apology letter for

their misconduct but they did not do so. Nakul Sharma was suspended

for a month. The Disciplinary Committee decided to suspend Praveen

Basnet, Praveen Sharma and Lok Nath Chettri for a month as well.

Thereafter, the Dean of the College vide a letter dated 11.12.2020,

requested the Disciplinary Committee to grant the petitioners a final

chance and revoke the suspension. On 11.12.2020, the Disciplinary

Committee resolved to grant the petitioners one final chance thereby 8 W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2021 Praveen Basnet vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 12 of 2021 Pravin Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2021 Lok Nath Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.with W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2021 Nakul Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.

withholding any disciplinary action against the petitioners with the hope

that the petitioners would resume their academic activities. The

Disciplinary Committee further resolved that if the students were found

to be violating the rules and regulations of the College, stringent

disciplinary action would be taken. Thereafter, the petitioners

emboldened by the leniency shown by the College authorities

travelled to Gangtok without the consent of the College authorities

entered the State Secretariat and staged dharna without permission of

the authorities; attempted to threaten, assault and browbeat the

respondent no.2 culminating in the lodging of the First Information

Report. Thereafter, the petitioners conducted another unauthorized

press conference and filed a complaint against the respondent no.2

making false and baseless allegations. On 10.02.2021, another

Disciplinary Committee meeting was held which resolved to take action

against the students and also to expel the petitioners. It is the

respondents' case that they had granted numerous opportunities and

hearing to the petitioners to comply with the rules and regulations of

the College, to which, the petitioners have repeatedly engaged in a

conduct subverting the very foundation and discipline which is needed

for a conducive academic environment.

9. The petitioners have filed a rejoinder contesting the factual

averments made in the counter-affidavits by the respondents no.1, 2

and 3.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the

learned Additional Advocate General.

11. The format of the impugned expulsion orders reads thus;

"Ref. No. 276/SGC/Gyal/EDN/W/2021 Date:- 19.02.2021

OFFICE ORDER Whereas ..........................., student of ..........................................while initially joining this college was made aware of the Rules and Regulations of the college vide the prospectus.

And whereas ........................ had signed the undertaking dated: ................... stating that he would abide by the rules and Regulations of the college and would submit himself to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Disciplinary Committee and other authorities of the college who may be vested with the authority to exercise discipline under Rules and Regulations that have been framed by the college.

And whereas .................... despite having signed the undertaking dated: ...................... violated Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12 & 16 of the Rules and Regulations of the College.

Now, therefore after taking into account of the aforesaid instances of repeated breach of institutional Rules and Regulations, based on common consensus (vide General Body Meeting dated 10.02.2021), the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied that all the allegations levelled against you are correct and expel you from the college with immediate effect."

12. A perusal of the impugned expulsion orders reflects that

not a single instance of any breach of the rules has been mentioned in

it. On a pointed question to the learned Additional Advocate General

as to whether the impugned expulsion order was preceded by a show

cause notice, he very fairly stated that there was no show cause notice

issued highlighting the various instances of the breach of the rules. The

learned Additional Advocate General pointed out the minutes of the

meeting dated 10.02.2021 in reply to the query as to what were the

breaches that were alleged in the impugned expulsion orders. A 10 W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2021 Praveen Basnet vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 12 of 2021 Pravin Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2021 Lok Nath Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.with W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2021 Nakul Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.

perusal of the minutes of the meeting reflects that the meeting was of

the Head of Departments alleging that the students had violated the

rules by staging dharna. Neither the petitioners nor other students were

part of the meeting convened on 10.02.2021, in which it was recorded

that 21 students named therein were identified for violating the

institutional rules and regulations by staging dharna without seeking

prior permission from the institution; inappropriate and indecent use of

language; instigating other students to take part in such acts and

disrupting the teaching - learning environment. The Disciplinary

Committee seems to have thereafter decided to issue a show notice to

those students who breached the institutional norms for the first time as

deterrent and expelled those who had violated the rules on multiple

occasions. It was in this meeting that a resolution was taken to expel

the petitioners for engaging themselves in such activities bringing

disrepute to the institution, conducting press conferences in the

College campus without seeking permission from College

administration on multiple occasions, staging dharna at the Education

Department Headquarters at Gangtok without the consent of the

administration and disrupting the teaching and learning environment of

the College. Besides these minutes, there is nothing on record placed

as proof of evidence to establish the allegations made against the

petitioners.

13. In the present case, the petitioners are seeking for setting

aside the impugned expulsion orders and the decision at the General

Body Meeting dated 10.02.2021, passed against them by the College. 11

14. In Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management, Nutrition & Catering

Technology, Chandigarh vs. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan1, the Supreme Court held

that there should be strict discipline in academic matters and

malpractices should be severely punished. High educational standards

have to be maintained if the country is to progress. The High Court

should not ordinarily interfere with the functioning and order of the

educational authorities unless there is clear violation of some statutory

rule or legal principle.

15. In M.D. Mobashashir Sarwar vs. Jamia Millia Islamia2, the Delhi High

Court examined an expulsion of a student. It held that when it comes to

maintenance of academic standards, court should ordinarily refrain

from interfering with matters relating to the internal working of

educational institutions for the reason that the decisions taken by such

academic bodies are largely in the nature of policy decisions and the

rules and regulations made by the institutions are based on their day to

day experience. As long as such a decision/rule/regulation is on the

face of it unreasonable, arbitrary or in violation of the principles of

natural justice, the courts ought not to interfere therein as every

institution has a right to set its own benchmark for achieving academic

excellence. There should be strict discipline in academic matters and to

maintain such discipline, an academic institution is well empowered to

take disciplinary action against a delinquent and/or rusticating a

student. The bottom line is that if the tussle is between the interest of an

1 (2009) 1 SCC 59 2 2012 SCC Online Del 1289 12 W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2021 Praveen Basnet vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 12 of 2021 Pravin Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2021 Lok Nath Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.with W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2021 Nakul Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.

educational body and a student, the former ought to prevail over the

latter, and further that the head of the institution is the best judge of a

prevailing situation and wherever, a student is found to be acting in an

indisciplined manner or is found to be indulging in violent, criminal acts

and/or in moral turpitude, he is empowered to take a decision taking

into consideration the past conduct of the student and the prevalent

situation. There is a difference in jural interference in academic

standards and judicial review of the punishment. When an order of

punishment is examined, the court must satisfy itself that the order is a

reasoned one. The court is required to examine whether it ought to

interfere in the decision and consider whether there is any arbitrariness

in the action taken or whether the rules of natural justice have been

violated or not, or the decision taken is so unreasonable and/or

discriminatory that it requires interference. The punishment of expulsion

and campus ban has serious implications and ought to be inflicted on

a student only in cases of grave offences. An earlier decision of the

Delhi High Court in Amir-Jamia vs Desharath Raj3, was also referred to where

it was held that when a student is expelled by an educational authority

on the allegations that he is guilty of indiscipline, such an action is in the

nature of an adjudication and therefore, a student against whom such

a serious action is proposed to be taken, must be afforded a

reasonable opportunity of being heard against the proposed action

and that rules of natural justice ought to be observed before exercising

the drastic powers of expulsion and if they failed to do so then the court

3 ILR 1969 Delhi 2002 13 W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2021 Praveen Basnet vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 12 of 2021 Pravin Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2021 Lok Nath Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.with W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2021 Nakul Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.

would be constrained to intervene, though reluctantly. The Delhi High

Court held in paragraph 29 as follows:-

"29. The impugned order passed by the respondents have far reaching consequences. Expulsion from the school and the ban imposed on the petitioner from entering the school campus is a grave punishment to be inflicted. While it is true that no leniency ought to be shown in academic matters and the educational institutions ought to be very strict in maintaining high academic standards and academic discipline, but at the same time the rules of audi alteram partem cannot be thrown to the winds. Following the principles of natural justice is the first filter of a judicial act. Turning a blind eye to the said rule is close to being sacrilegious to the rule of law. The circumstances notes hereinabove do not justify dispensing completely with the procedure prescribed under Ordinance 14 by invoking Statute 31."

16. The averments in the writ petitions as well as the counter-

affidavits filed by the respondents no.1, 2 and 3, make it evident that

the allegations levelled against the petitioners were not without any

reason. The allegations, if true, may amount to indiscipline which ought

to be disciplined. The College authorities are fully within their power and

jurisdiction to discipline students resorting to indiscipline and

misconduct. Students are enrolled in colleges to pursue education

which is fundamental to their growth. Students must always ensure that

they take this opportunity of being enrolled in an institute to educate

themselves and make them better citizens. It is the educated

enlightened students which makes the back bone of our nation.

17. Having said that, on examination of the records of the

present cases, it is noticed that there has been a complete violation of

the principles of natural justice. The impugned expulsion orders have

been passed without giving an opportunity to the petitioners to show

cause as to why such an action, as was resorted to, ought not to be 14 W.P. (C) No. 11 of 2021 Praveen Basnet vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 12 of 2021 Pravin Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors. with W.P. (C) No. 13 of 2021 Lok Nath Chettri vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.with W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2021 Nakul Sharma vs. State of Sikkim & Ors.

taken. There is no material, even at this stage, on perusal of the counter

affidavits, which reflect that the authorities applied their mind to the

evidence to establish the allegations and thereafter to pass the

impugned expulsion orders after affording an opportunity to them. The

impugned expulsion orders as well as the decision for their expulsions

taken at the General Body Meeting dated 10.02.2021, in such

circumstances, cannot be sustained. They are accordingly set aside.

18. In the facts of the case, this court is also of the view that

the College authorities shall be fully within their rights to issue show

cause notice upon the petitioners on ascertained facts giving them an

opportunity to explain themselves and after following the principles of

natural justice to take such measured disciplinary action as befitting the

indiscipline and as per rules and regulations of the College.

19. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent above and

disposed of accordingly.

20. The Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed of.

21. No order as to costs.




                                                        ( Bhaskar Raj Pradhan )
                                                                       Judge

  Approved for reporting: Yes/No
  Internet              : Yes/No
bp