Interim reprieve for dismissed student as HC orders college to conduct enquiry

When the plea moved by the student, A Manikandan, came up seeking to quash the dismissal order and readmit him in the college came up before him, Justice G Jayachandran said, “In all fairness, before passing the dismissal order, the decision of the College Administrative Committee ought to have been served to the petitioner inviting his explanation. Thereafter, final decision should have taken. Since the final decision of dismissal taken without affording opportunity to the petitioner, the said part of impugned order dated September 25 is bad in law.”

Even though he noted that the court was conscious of the fact that the petitioner’s activities in the college was not conducive for the peaceful atmosphere in the college campus, Justice Jayachandran held that the dismissal should be modified as suspension. “The principal, Government Arts College for Men, Nandanam, shall cause notice to the petitioner and call for the explanation about his misconducts. After getting his explanation, appropriate order shall be passed. The process of enquiry shall be completed within six weeks.”

Manikandan had contended that he made representation to the college principal regarding violence in the campus caused by a professor against a first-year student. The college principal refused to meet the student’s representative who demanded enquiry and action against the professor. Instead of acting against the professor, the principal issued dismissal order against him without enquiry and hence the dismissal was against principles of natural justice, he argued.

Through a counter affidavit, the principal had contended that the petitioner claiming himself as the secretary of All India Student Federation (AISF) used to holding protest against the college administration, causing unrest in the campus.

Also, despite an assurance given by him on July 3 that he would not indulge in illegal activities against the college, Manikandan resorted to a protest on September 17 against certain government policies. He went to the other classrooms and asked the students to come out of the classesto join the protest.

The petitioner was trying to use the college premises as the AISF union office, the counter said, adding that the College Council met and unanimously decided to dismiss the petitioner to protect the welfare of 3,500 students pursuing their studies in the college.

The Madras High Court is seized of a plea challenging the amendment brought about in Section 326-A of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, and analogous Acts, which deal with regulations and procedures on how a hoarding can be put up in a public place within the Corporation limits.

The contention raised in the plea is that the amendment brought about in Section 326-A of the Act impinged upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and Article 14 of the Constitution of India since the amendment seeks to monopolise erecting of hoardings only on land belonging to the city Corporation.

“Therefore, it correspondingly prohibits such structure being erected on any private land, which action is not only discriminatory but there is no nexus established with any rational object sought to be achieved regards setting up of hoardings,” the plea said.

Consequently, the plea urged that the phrase ‘land belonging to the Corporation’ be struck down in order to remove this anomaly.

However, with the counsel submitting that the Additional Advocate General has to lead arguments in this case and sought for short adjournment, the first bench comprising Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Subramonium Prasad, said, “The issue being one of seminal importance, which also appears to be urgent keeping in view the nature of the restrictions imposed, we find it expedient to adjourn the matter for November 11 as prayed for.”