Students of a co-educational college cannot be imposed with the extreme punishment of dismissal for travelling together in a public bus after college hours or exchanging messages through mobile phones during class hours despite a specific ban on using such devices on the campus, the Madras High Court Bench here has said.
Justice V. Dhanapalan made the observation while setting aside two dismissal orders passed by the principal of S. Vellaichamy Nadar College at Nagamalai near here on November 8. The orders were passed against a male and a female student accused of exchanging “indecent” SMS and travelling together in a bus. Both challenged their dismissal through separate writ petitions.
Allowing the petitions filed through their counsel P. Rathinam, the judge held that the dismissal orders were “ex-facie illegal, non-speaking and passed with total non-application of mind,” besides suffering from violations of the principles of natural justice as the petitioners had not been served with the list of charges or a copy of the enquiry report in order to explain their stand.
Though expressing concern over the usage of mobile phones by some students for undesirable things, the judge said: “ A separate mechanism must be devised to regulate the conduct of the students inside the educational institutions.
“Mere use of a technological advancement, which causes certain inconvenience, will not deprive the students of their right to education. The orders of dismissal of the petitioners will not only prevent the petitioners from proceeding further with their education but also ruin their future. Hence, it is for the State authorities, educational institutions and all other stakeholders in the respective field to evolve a mechanism with regard to the usage of cell phones by the students and the regulation thereof.”
Insofar as the present case was concerned, though the college had banned mobile phones, it had not created facilities for leaving them in a secure place near the entrance, office room or some other place. Yet, it dismissed the petitioners without affording them an opportunity to correct their mistake.
On the charge of travelling together in a public bus, the judge said: “It is not uncommon that we see many students, both male and female, travelling together in buses or other vehicles, which are meant for general public, to reach their homes. It is not the case of the fourth respondent (principal) that the petitioners travelled on a two wheeler as rider and pillion.
“In a civilised and developed society, the movement of students, irrespective of the gender they belong to, freely cannot be faulted by the institution. If it is construed in a wrong sense, there will not be any headway with regard to the day-to-day affairs of society among students, which leads to their mundane life and as-is-where-is state.”
