JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V.K. Singh, senior Counsel assisted by Sri Hem Pratap Singh for respondent No. 1 & 2 and the Standing Counsel.
2. The petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 9.7.1996 passed by the Registrar, Banaras Hindu University, by which he was expelled from the Banaras Hindu University for a period of five years from the date of issuance of the order under Clause (a) category 1(ii) of Banaras Hindu University Calender Part I vol. II. Copy of the impugned order has been appended as annexure-1 to the writ petition.
The prayers of the petitioner in the writ petition are:
(A) issue an appropriate writ/order or direction, directing the respondent No. 1 to cancel the order passed on 9.7.1996 in which the petitioner was expelled for five years and grant compensation as prayed.
(B) pass any order/relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.
(C) Interest at the rate of 12 $ may also be awarded for delayed payment of harassment to the petitioner as per law.
(D) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in the interest of justice.
3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that Chief Proctor, BHU was reported on 24.11.1995 that a golden chain of Mrs. Chandana Haider, Reader in Zoology was snatched by two miscreants while she was coming from Academic Staff College to her department. On the basis of complaint lodged by her, the matter was reported to police station Lanka by the BHU. Later on the complainant on the basis of photographs of students shown to her recognized the petitioner who was appearing in the examination of M. Com. (previous) held by the BHU. This was then informed to the Vice Chancellor and the Chief proctor of the University. Subsequently, the Chief Proctor intimated Police station Lanka, Varanasi and the petitioner was taken into custody by the police.
4. It is further submitted on the basis of averments made in paragraph 5.4 of the petition that on the basis of F.I.R. 367 of 1996, a case Under Section 392 IPC was registered before Special C.J.M., Varanasi being case No. 1602 of 1996, State v. Rakesh Vij, which was dismissed on 30.11.2000. That after being taken into police custody, the petitioner was subjected to severe physical torture by the police to such an extent that he was hospitalised by the police to save his life. A telegraphic complaint is said to have been made to Human Rights Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) by the father of the petitioner and detailed proceedings were conducted by the Commission in case No. 12982/1996-97. Thereafter, at its instance, the petitioner was referred to A.1.1.M.S. Hospital at New Delhi for further medical tests at the expenses of the State.
In paragraph 5.7 it is averred that:
it was established that there is ample material on record to hold that excessive custodial violence, brutal or savage in nature was perpetrated by the police officials. As a consequence of torture inflicted on the petitioner as found by the medical board of A.I.I.M.S., there has been a tremendous psychological effect such as post traumatic stress disorder on overall personality of the petitioner.
5. It is stated that the medical board in its report has submitted that at present there is no proven treatment for this disorder.
6. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has suffered trauma, stresses and has been rendered incapable to lead a normal life for rest of his life, which is gross violation of human rights resulting from the barbaric acts of torture perpetrated on the petitioner by the police as a consequence of having been falsely implicated and being got arrested by the authorities of BHU while appearing in the M. Com. (Previous) examination resulting in the passing of impugned order by the Vice Chancellor dated 9.7.1996 against all cannons of principles of natural justice, and therefore, the University is liable to compensate the petitioner for the dawages suffered by him.
7. It is also contended that the National Human Rights Commission had directed for action against the defaulting doctor and the State Government but he has not been informed as to what action/ order has been taken/passed against the then S.S.P., Varanasi in terms of the directions of the Commission.
8. It is averred in paragraph 5.9 that the petitioner has been acquitted by the Special C.J.M., Varanasi by judgment and order dated 20.11.2000 in Criminal Pt. No. 1602 of 1996, State v. Rakesh Vij, arising out of FIR 116/96 of Mrs. C. Haldar.
9. It is submitted that father of the petitioner then filed a petition before the National Human Rights Commission in respect of expulsion of the petitioner from the BHU but the Commission by its letter dated 22.5.2001 advised that he should approach in this respect before the appropriate court for redressal of his grievances.
10. Accordingly, the petitioner moved the Apex Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 550 of 2006, which was withdrawn by him. The order of the apex Court permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition is Annexure-8 to the petition which is as under:
Learned Counsel for the petitioner seek permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the High Court. Permission granted. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
11. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the Delhi High Court by means of writ Petition No. 4175 of 2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn as His Lordships were of the view that writ petition in the matter would be before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad which was having jurisdiction in the matter.
12. The present writ petition has thereafter been filed by the petitioner on the grounds that the order dated 9.7.1996 was passed by the Vice Chancellor without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and verifying the facts which has spoiled his whole career, has affected his fundamental right to education and further employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, that by the aforesaid unlawful expulsion of the petitioner from the university he has suffered at the hands of the University while he was having excellent career in education with bright prospects of life.
13. The grounds for compensation from the police and the University are that because of wrong implication in the case by Mrs. C. Haldar, the order dated 9.7.96 which was misconceived, was passed and the police has subjected him to torture making incapacitation to lead normal life; that his son was illegally detained by the police and none of his family members were allowed to meet him; that electric shocks were administered to him by the police; that when the police saw that the petitioner started losing consciousness, he was taken to Govt. Hospital and later rushed him to S.P. Gupta Hospital and after that to Heritage Private hospital in a desperate attempt to save themselves.
14. It is averred that the petitioner has moved Habeas Corpus Petition No. 4075 of 1996 before the High Court and in spite of the order passed therein by the Court, no treatment was given to him.
15. It is also averred that the State Government has got the incident enquired through State C.B.C.I.D. which has recommended prosecution of the erring policemen namely, 1- J.P. Singh, Circile Officer, (2) Sl. R.N. Singh, S.O. Bhelupur Thana (3) S.I. Gyan Prakash Pathak, (4) S.I. Costable Gorakh Nath Shukla, (5) S.I. Rajendra Prasad Singh and (6) Constable Rama Shanker Singh Yadav having found them guilty for the offences Under Section 147, 148, 326, 323, 308 IPC; that the C.B.C.I.D. has also recommended departmental action against the following officers, 1. Sri V.K. Gupta, S.S.P., 2. Sri Ashutosh Pandey, S.P. City, Varanasi, 3. Sri Chandu Lai, Head Writer, 4. Shri Ram Lakhan Gupta, Head Writer and 5. Sri Shiv Murat Pandey, constable writer.
16. According to the petitioner the medical and the C.B.C.I.D. reports establish that the petitioner was detained by the police and subjected to torture perpetrated by the police officials which have left behind serious incapacitation of his physical facilities and excessive custodial violence, brutal or savage in nature, and therefore the petitioner has an enforceable right to compensation from the respondents in view of judgment rendered in Vishalka and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1997 (5) 453.
17. According to the petitioner, right to compensation has to be treated as an enforceable right, for which reliance has been placed upon the decisions rendered in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal A.I.R. S.C. 610 as well as in the case of Hem Lal Bhandari v. State of Sikkim , wherein it has been held that "It is not permissible in matters relating to the personal liberty and freedom of a citizen to take either a liberal or a generous view of the lapses on the part of the officers."
18. From the narration of aforesaid facts, the case of the petitioner in nutshell is that due to lodging of F.I.R. by Mrs. Chandana Haider and a misconceived order passed by the Vice Chancellor dated 9.7.1996 impugned in the writ petition, life of the petitioner has been ruined at the hands of the University, for which the University and Mrs. Chandana Haider are liable to compensate the petitioner. The details of compensation are given in the writ petition on the basis that he had passed B. Com. in 1st Division and at the relevant time he was student of M.Com. and thereafter he would have done research in Commerce, thereafter he would have been appointed as lecturer, reader, professor etc., and thus total compensation of Rs. 94,43,200/- has been claimed from them.
19. According to the petitioner, in addition to above compensation, the petitioner has also been deprived of the revision of scale from time to time and enhancement of D.A. admissible to the employees of the University, revision of pay scales in the year 2006, 2016 and 2032 which may also be determined and added in the aforesaid amount of compensation.
20. On the perusal of the writ petition and records appended to it, it is clear that Mrs. C. Haider had only made a complaint to the University regarding snatching of her golden chain and she had recognised the petitioner on the basis of photographs affixed on the examination forms shown to her. Apparently, the petitioner had been arrested by the police on the FIR lodged by the University authorities.
21. There is no allegation either against the University or Mrs. C. Rattier that atrocities by the police and doctors had been committed at their instance and that they were involved in the atrocities and physical torture by the police in any manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that either the University or Mrs. C. Haider was in any way involved in the atrocities committed by the police on the petitioner.
22. It is also apparent from the report of C.B.C.I.D. that they have recommended action against the police officials and the doctors who were negligent in giving treatment to the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner was expelled by the Vice Chancellor from the University, will not make the University or the complainant Mrs. C. Haider a part of the acts of physical and mental torture alleged to have been committed by the police or doctors treating the petitioner.
23. The petitioner has a legal right to claim compensation in a civil suit or under law of torts against the policemen. Surprisingly, none of the police personnel or doctors against whose recommendation has been made by the C.B.C.I.D., have been made party in the writ petition. It was they, according to the petitioner, who were responsible for his physical and mental torture and in manhandling of the petitioner which resulted in the said serious incapacitation of his physical facilities depriving him from leading a normal life.
24. If action against Mrs. C. Haider or the BHU for compensation in the aforesaid circumstance for brutalities of the police as suggested by the petitioner is laid down as law, then in that eventuality, in my opinion, it will have an adverse effect upon the society at large including law enforcement machinery, the legislature as well as the justice delivery system. Regard may be had to the fact that case against the petitioner was dismissed by giving him the benefit of doubt. Regard may also be had to the fact that some case had also been lodged against the petitioner for the murder of his friend Sanjay and as orally informed the petitioner had been acquitted in that case also. It may also be noted here that the Human Rights Commission Report relied on by the petitioner shows that atrocities have been committed by the police personnel and not by the University or complainant Mrs. C. Haider, hence compensation if any, could have been claimed from the aforesaid police officers.
25. In any view of the matter, the question whether compensation is payable or not by the University or by complainant Mrs. C. Haider, requires recording of findings of fact on the basis of oral and documentary evidence which exercise is not feasible by this Court in the writ jurisdiction and the civil court is best suited for the purpose.
26. The petitioner is admittedly not now physically capable to lead normal life or take further study for which compensation is being sought, therefore, in my opinion, no useful purpose would be served even if the impugned order is quashed as the period of five years for which the petitioner was expelled from the university, is already over and the order stands exhausted. More over, it cannot certainly be said that the petitioner would have become lecturer, reader, professor etc. and would have earned the amount of compensation as claimed by him. He may not have even get employment as it appears from the record that though he has been acquitted in two criminal cases, one regarding snatching of golden chain and the another regarding murder of his friend, he might have led another life. No body has seen the future in this regard. Therefore, the question of payment of compensation or interest as prayed by the petitioner for the harassment as per law prayed by him, can only be granted in a suit as indicated above.
27. For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative efficacious remedy and the petitioner may file a suit.