Telangana High Court Sets Aside Rustication Orders In TSPSC Paper Leak Case, Says Natural Justice Principles Were Violated By Not Hearing Students
The Telangana High Court had set aside the rustication order of two students passed by the Forest College and Research Institute, Mulugu for their alleged involvement in the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) paper leakage case. The rustication was set aside on the grounds that the college had violated the principles of natural justice by expelling the students without giving...
The Telangana High Court had set aside the rustication order of two students passed by the Forest College and Research Institute, Mulugu for their alleged involvement in the Telangana State Public Service Commission (TSPSC) paper leakage case.
The rustication was set aside on the grounds that the college had violated the principles of natural justice by expelling the students without giving them an opportunity of hearing.
A single bench of Justice Surepalli Nanda held:
“This Court opines that the petitioner is only accused and he had not been found guilty of the allegations leveled against him. This Court is of the firm opinion that Rusticating a student unilaterally without issuing notice to the petitioner till further orders based upon a preliminary report of special investigation team probing the TSPSC exam question papers leak on 12.07.2023 is an arbitrary exercise of power [since] the guilt of the petitioner has not been decided or established by any competent Judicial forum and in the absence of the same the 3rd respondent ought not have issued the impugned rustication order unilaterally in clear violation of principles of natural justice."
Justice Nanda passed the same order in two separate writ petitions, filed to set aside the rustication orders of two PhD students of the Forest College and Research Institute who were arrayed as accused number 81 & 82 of the TSPSC paper leakage case on the ground that the rustication order was passed without granting them an opportunity of hearing and in violation of the Post Graduate Regulations.
Justice Nanda relied on Ankita Kailash Khandelwal And Others v. State Of Maharashtra, Uma Nath Pandey v. State Of U.P and Sumit Mehta v. State Of N.C.T OF Delhi, and iterated that even when the statute does not explicitly stipulate that the party shall be heard, “the Justice of the common law will supply the omission of the Legislature,” when individual liberty was at stake.
Factual Background:
The accused were arrested by the police due to their alleged involvement in the TSPSC exam question papers leak and malpractice case and sent for judicial remand. Subsequently, the College on 14.07.2023 formed a Disciplinary Committee consisting of 4 senior faculty members, who decided to rusticate the petitioners until further orders in compliance with Regulation 11 of Post Graduation Courses of Konda Laxman Telangana State Horticulture University, Mulugu (Parent University to the Forest College).
The petitioners contended that they had never appeared for the TSPSC AEE & DAO exam and could not possibly be involved in malpractices. They further contended that the rustication order was passed without awarding them an opportunity of hearing and in violation of Regulations 10.3.7 and 10.3.8 of the Post Graduate Rules.
Regulations 10.3.7 and 10.3.8 state that it is for the Dean of the college to enquire into such complaints and shall take immediate action such as administering a warning, fine, expulsion from the hostel and suspension from attending the classes for a period not exceeding a month.
Further, in case of serious disciplinary action, the dean is to constitute a committee of 3 senior faculty members, take a decision based on the recommendations of the Committee, and inform the same to the University. The petitioners contended that the regulations do not permit the college to high-handedly rusticate a student indefinitely.
The petitioners also contended that Regulation 11 of the Post-Graduate Regulations is applicable only when a student is found using unfair practices in examinations conducted by the University and not in the present case.
The College on the other hand contended that the rustication order was only a temporary order and the students would be awarded an opportunity of hearing before the final disciplinary proceedings for termination. It was also contended that the accused students were arrested based on a confession, which the disciplinary committee considered before passing the order.
It was further contended that both students were allowed to write exams as per the orders of this Court causing no serious harm to the education of the students. Lastly, that, the order was passed to avert damage to the College and to reduce the adverse effect it would have on students studying in the College.
After considering the arguments but both sides, Justice Nanda noted that no explanation of whatsoever nature had been called for from the petitioner nor any reasonable opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner in the present case.
Accordingly, the Bench held:
“The order impugned has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner unilaterally...The principle of audi alteram partem which mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard, is part of the rules of natural justice. Thus the soul of Natural Justice, it has been said, is only “fair play in action”. Where a public office has power to deprive a person of his liberty or his property, the general principle is that it can be done only after providing an opportunity of being heard and of making representation on his own behalf."
Thus, the rustication order was set aside, while the college was given liberty to proceed afresh with the matter, if they so intended, by duly following principles of Natural Justice.
W.P. no. 24002 of 2023 & W.P. no. 24008 of 2023.
Counsel for petitioner: Mohd. Azhar
Counsel for Respondents: G.P. for Education, Forests & Services I