W.P.C.No.13757 of 2014 is filed seeking to quash Exts.P20, P21, P23 and P25 and for a direction to the first respondent not to take any action pursuant to the aforesaid orders/notices.
2. The facts involved in the above case would disclose that the petitioner is an Industrial Training Institute affiliated to National Council for Vocational Training (NCVT), Government of India. It is a private institution having minority educational status. The fourth respondent was a student studying in the second year of Draftsman(Civil) course. There occurred some issues between the fourth respondent and other students which resulted in a criminal case being taken against the fourth respondent and certain others. Case was also charge sheeted against the fourth respondent as C.C.No.344 of 2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Changanaserry.
3. On account of such a factual situation, the Principal directed an enquiry against the fourth respondent. A three-member Enquiry Commission was constituted. The fourth respondent was suspended from attending classes. After notice to the fourth respondent, the Enquiry Commission found him guilty of misconduct and indiscipline, pursuant to which he was dismissed from the College and the matter was informed to the third respondent by the Principal as per Ext.P19 letter.
4. The petitioner submits that they were served with Ext.P20 order dated 09/05/2014, calling upon them to reinstate the fourth respondent in the Institute. The third respondent apparently exercised its power under Clause 23 of the Training Manual for Industrial Training Institutes and Centres. Petitioner has a case that before issuing Ext.P20, they were not heard. On 21/05/2014, they were again served with another letter, Ext.P22 dated 20/05/2014 issued by the respondent calling upon the Principal to reinstate the student before 3 p.m. on 21/05/2014. On 24/05/2014, by Ext.P23, the third respondent has sought for explanation from the Institute as to why action should not be taken against the Principal. Ext.P24 is the document received as e-mail. By Ext.P25 dated 20/05/2014, the petitioner was again informed by the third respondent that non-compliance of his directions would result in not permitting the College to have admissions to the 2014 August batch.
5. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders and notices are absolutely without jurisdiction in so far as the Training Manual has no statutory force. Even otherwise, Clause 23 relied upon by the third respondent has no application to the facts involved in the matter as there is a clear indication that the provisions of Clause 23 are not applicable to trainees appearing in the All India Trade Tests after August 1984 since the preliminary first-tier test was abolished. That apart, it is contended that Principal of the College is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against a trainee of the Institute and the third respondent has no appellate power. The Constitution of the petitioner Institute is produced as Ext.P10 which clearly provides for the action to be taken in respect of general discipline and behaviour of students. It is also stated that the Principal has absolute control over the students and to take disciplinary action against them. That apart the impugned orders are issued without hearing the petitioner and the therefore it amounts to violation of the principles of natural Justice. It is also pointed out that the chronology of events clearly indicates bias in issuing the impugned orders/notices on the part of the third respondent as he has shown undue haste in setting aside an order of dismissal of the student without even hearing the petitioner and further insisted that the fourth respondent should be reinstated immediately.
6. W.P.C.No.13233 of 2014 is filed by the student seeking to implement Ext.P4 order which is the same as Ext.P20 in W.P.C.No.13757 of 2014. Since common questions arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are decided together. The parties and documents referred herein are as described in W.P.C.No.13757 of 2014 unless otherwise mentioned.
7. Apparently, the order at Ext.P20 calls upon the Institute to reinstate the fourth respondent thereby setting aside the disciplinary action taken by the Principal of the Institute against the fourth respondent. The first question is whether the third respondent has any power to invoke Clause 23 of the Training Manual. Ext.P27 is the preface to the Training Manual which clearly indicates that it is not a legal document, but is only made to serve the users for the smooth implementation of the norms prescribed by NCVT. Ext.P28 contains Clause 23 which inter alia states in sub Clause (a) that the State Directors may discharge at their discretion such trainees as are recommended for discharge by the Principals of Training Institutes/Centres on account of misconduct, unsatisfactory progress in training etc. For acts of indiscipline and misconduct, the Principal of the Institute/Centre should issue a written warning for the first offence and if repeated, the matter should be reported to the State Director with a view to discharge the training. However after clause (a), (b) and (c), it is clearly indicated that the said provisions are not applicable to trainees in the All India Trade Tests after August 1984. If so, Clause 23(a), (b) and (c) has no application to the Institute as matters stand now and therefore the third respondent has no jurisdiction to interfere with the disciplinary action taken by the petitioner on the basis of the Constitution of the petitioner Institute. The Constitution at Ext.P10 clearly provides that the Principal of the Institute is the competent authority to take disciplinary action against the students. Under such circumstances I do not think that there was any justification on the part of the third respondent to have interfered with the disciplinary action taken by the Principal against the fourth respondent.
8. The facts involved in the case further disclose that, admittedly the fourth respondent was involved in a crime. The Principal had formed a Committee to enquire into the said crime in which the fourth respondent was involved. The Committee found the fourth respondent guilty of misconduct. Hence there was justification on the part of the Principal to have taken disciplinary action against the fourth respondent. The third respondent, though without jurisdiction, proceeded on the basis that the fourth respondent, being young at the age of 19, should not be thrown away from the Institute and he should be given an opportunity to complete his course. But according to the Principal, permitting a student, who was involved in a crime by which several other students were injured and manhandled, may affect the morale of the other students and would even affect the discipline of the Institute. In such circumstances, though his young age is a relevant factor, taking into account the overall situation under which such a crime happened, it may not be proper to permit him to continue the course in the same Institute. That apart, it is contended that the fourth respondent does not have sufficient attendance to appear for the test to be conducted for the said course.
9. Having regard to these factual situations, I do not think that the third respondent was justified in interfering with the disciplinary action taken against the fourth respondent and therefore W.P.C.No.13757 of 2014 is liable to be allowed and W.P.C.No.13233 of 2014 is liable to be dismissed.
10. But having regard to the fact that the third respondent had formed an opinion that one more opportunity has to be given to the fourth respondent, taking into consideration his age and the fact that he was undergoing a vocational training, he should be permitted to complete the course, though not in this College but in another Institute of his choice. Hence the petitioner Institute shall consider providing him with necessary transfer certificate to enable him to get admission to any other Institute, if a request is made to that effect.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, these writ petitions are decided as under:
i) W.P.C No.13233 of 2014 is dismissed.
ii) W.P.C.No.13757 of 2014 is allowed setting aside Exts.P20, P21, P23 and P25. However, on a request being made by the 4th respondent, the petitioner shall make necessary arrangements to give transfer certificate to enable him to get admission in another Institute of his choice.
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE) jsr