HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.33040, 32945 and 32985 of 2014 Date : 17-12-2014 W.P.No.33040 of 2014 Between:
Meka Bhanu Prakash ..
Petitioner And The State of Telangana, Represented by its Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. Pottigari Sridhar Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Assistant Government Pleader for Education Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3 : Mr. K.V. Raghuveer Counsel for respondent No.4 : Mr. A. Abhishekh Reddy The Court made the following :
ORDER:
These three Writ Petitions arise out of proceedings dated 24-4-2014 of respondent No.3 whereby he has decided that the suspension orders made against the petitioners, the students of III Year B.Tech., shall be continued till final disposal of the criminal case registered against them in Dundigal Police Station.
The petitioners are the students of III Year B.Tech. (Civil Engineering Branch) of respondent No.2 college. On 8-2-2014, a complaint was lodged against them before the Dundigal Police to the effect that they have assaulted a co- student by name Chrukuri Shravan Kumar, at a bus stop outside the college premises. Based on the criminal complaint, the petitioners were suspended by respondent No.3 on 10-2-2014 and an Enquiry Committee was constituted. Based on the Enquiry Committee report, respondent No.3 has decided that the suspension of the petitioners shall be continued till final disposal of the criminal case.
A perusal of the enquiry report shows that while Meka Bhanu Prakash and Yerramasu Suresh Babu, the petitioners in W.P.No.33040 and 32985 of 2014, respectively, are stated to have admitted that they have physically assaulted their co-student, Mathal Hemanth, the petitioner in W.P.No.32945 of 2014, has stated that he has intervened to pacify both the groups and has not assaulted any one. However, the Enquiry Committee has reached to the conclusion that all the three students are involved in the incident.
It is desirable that ragging in all forms is prohibited and violence by students, at all costs, must be shunned. Whether the allegations made against the petitioners are correct or not needs to be adjudicated in the pending criminal proceedings. However, in view of pendency of the criminal case, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have evidently decided to await the adjudication by the criminal court rather than holding a preliminary enquiry. The petitioners have already lost one academic year, which itself is a severe punishment for their alleged reproachable conduct. The petitioners being young, their future career cannot be jeopardized by continuing their suspension indefinitely to await the Judgment of the criminal court. It is not possible to guess as to when the criminal court is going to complete the case and deliver its verdict. In the event of acquittal of the petitioners, the lost time cannot be compensated. In these facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be in the interest of the petitioners who are young students, to continue the order of suspension indefinitely. Instead, they may be allowed to pursue their studies which shall be subject to the result of the pending criminal case.
For the above mentioned reasons, the impugned orders are set-aside. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to allow the petitioners to resume their B.Tech. course from the stage where they were suspended.
The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to the disposal of the Writ Petitions, WPMP Nos.41327 and 42209 in W.P.No.33040; WPMP Nos.41195 and 42215 of 2014 in W.P.No.32945 of 2014; and WPMP Nos.41242 and 42210 of 2014 in W.P.No.32985 of 2014 are disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 17-12-2014 AM