This Court is very serious in looking at the present writ petition, as the petitioner herein was meted out with endless mental torture viz., ragging at the hands of her seniors, (whose names were mentioned in the preceding paragraph) in the institution, in which she opted to study for her academic progress. When a student joins in an institution with ambition of prospective future, it is incumbent on the part of the Principal of the said institution to look after their welfare and exhibit her responsibility in such a way that the students' ambitions having been accomplished. But, in the present case, the Principal of the second respondent institution thoroughly failed to take action on the so-called senior students, who headed ragging in the said institution. The Principal, after coming to know or after receiving the complaint, as per Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999, ought to have enquired into the complaint immediately within 72 hours, either by herself or through a Senior teaching staff working in the institution. However, she failed to enquire into the complaint. On the other hand, with no other option, the petitioner and her father made a written complaint to the police station and the police duly enquired the matter headed by Anti Ragging Committee.
12. Before parting with the case, this Court expresses its total dissatisfaction on the second respondent institution having failed to comply with the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was inaction on the Management of the second respondent institution and as such, they are bound to refund the amount of Rs.35,250/- paid by the petitioner for counselling and admission in the second respondent institution. Since it is stated in the counter that they have already returned caution deposit towards admission fees in the institute and hostel, they are directed to pay the above said amount deducting the amount already paid by them.
Madras High Court
Neelam Shetty vs R3 And R4 Impleaded As Per Order on 27 February, 2013
Citation; AIR 2013 Madras 253
The petitioner-Neelam Shetty has come forward with the present writ petition for issuance of a direction to the respondents to initiate disciplinary action against the six students, who headed the ragging in the 2nd respondent institution, to refund the amount of Rs.35,250/- paid for admission in the 2nd respondent institution and to pay an adequate compensation.
2. The short facts of the case, necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-
(i) Petitioner, Neelam Shetty, who secured 60% marks in Higher Secondary Examination opted for Hotel Management Course. She applied to the National Council for Hotel Management and Catering Technology, New Delhi and accordingly, she was selected for counselling and she paid Counselling fees of Rs.10,000/-. In the said counselling, she chosen to study at Institute of Hotel Management Catering Technology and Applied Nutrition at Tharamani, the second respondent institution. Thereafter, the petitioner paid Rs.25,250/- towards admission fees and also joined in the Girls Hostel of the second respondent institute on 14.07.2003. (ii) According to the petitioner's father viz., Suresh Shetty, he left his daughter Neelam Shetty in the Hostel and went for shopping and when he returned at about 9.30 p.m., he found that his daughter was in sorry state of affairs since she was ragged by her seniors. However, he convinced her daughter. (iii) According to the petitioner herein, the so-called seniors asked her to obey their instructions, which instructions were very serious in nature and could not be followed. Again the father of the petitioner, on coming to know about the continued ragging, went to report the matter to the Hostel Warden viz., Ananthakrishnan, who also called the senior students and asked to solve the matter amicably. Thereafter, the senior students asked apology. As such, Neelam Shetty continued to stay in the hostel. (iv) The petitioner's father, thereafter, went to Mumbai on 18.07.2003 and called his daughter over phone on 19.07.2003, at which time, Neelam Shetty, again made complaints of ragging meted out to her. Therefore, he returned to Chennai and met her daughter, who revealed all tortures given by her senior students. (v) On 17.07.2003, according to the petitioner, she was called by one of her seniors, who coerced her and warned her of reporting the matter to anybody. Even on 18.07.2003, the petitioner-Neelam Shetty was tortured by her seniors, who asked her to meet some senior boys and they all ragged her in an indecent manner. Further, another Senior asked the petitioner to clean her room and also asked to show some bad gestures for a vulgar song. (vi) Since the petitioner Neelam Shetty was meted out with painful incidents in the hostel, she complained the same to the Principal of the second respondent institution on 21.07.2003, who also according to the petitioner accused her as she made a complaint with ulterior motive. Left with no other option, the petitioner's father made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police on 22.07.2003 and the same was forwarded to the Joint Commissioner, South Chennai. Thereafter, enquiry was done by Assistant Commissioner of Police, Guindy, followed by the registration of complaint in FIR on 22.07.2003 by the Inspector of Police, Velacherry under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 and under Sections 354 and 506(ii) IPC and under Prohibition of Harassment of Women's Act, 1998. On 23.07.2003, a team of police headed by the Assistant Commissioner conducted an enquiry with the alleged five senior students. (vii) On the plea of the petitioner, she was permitted to take back her luggage from the hostel and on representation for return of Transfer Certificate and refund of fees amount, she was issued with Transfer Certificate, but she got refund only Rs.2,000/- and the petitioner-Neelam Shetty left the second respondent institution on 23.07.2003. (viii) The grievance of the petitioner is that, if the ragging continues in the said institution due to inaction on the complaint lodged to Principal and Hostel Warden, many number of other students, who could not even raise their voice against such disorder, would face miserable life. Hence, filed the present writ petition praying for the above relief.
3. The Writ Petition was admitted on 23.01.2004. On notice from this Court, the second respondent filed counter affidavit dated 24.03.2004, countering the averments made in the writ petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, who reiterated the contentions stated in the counter submits that the complaint of the petitioner is nothing but exaggeration and basically, she was not interested in the course and as such she camouflaged the term 'ragging' in the institution. He further argued that as per Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999, the student shall give the complaint in writing to the Management within three days from the date of occurrence. His further submission is that the petitioner has not given any such complaint in writing to the Principal or Head of the Institution. It is his further submission that according to the petitioner's request, the amount of caution deposit of Rs.2,000/- and Hostel Fee refund Rs.9996/- were sent by registered post to the local guardian at Chennai and the same was also received by him, however, no acknowledgement of receipt was done. He thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting second respondent and the counsel for other respondents.
6. Leaving aside the contention made by the petitioner in the writ petition, in the counter affidavit, the Principal of the second respondent institution viz., Mrs.D.Grace, has agreed that she was giving full support to the petitioner in the matter of ragging and that she convinced petitioner's guardian and her father in this matter. As such, it is transparently clear that the petitioner has given complaint to the Principal and she was very well aware about the indiscipline going on in her hostel. As such, the contention of the second respondent that the petitioner's attempt of filing the complaint before the Police and the writ petition before this Court are only with an intention to spoil the image of the institute is not sustainable.
7. Secondly, it is seen that the petitioner as early as on 22.07.2003, in her complaint to the Commissioner of Police mentioned the following names :- (1) Ms.Vidita Kachawa
(2) Ms.Sharwari Avinash Sonawane
(3) Ms.Priyanka Tripathi
(4) Ms.Parvathi Vijaykumar
(5) Ms.Subashri.S.
and stated that they were ragging her and she faced several severe punishments and mental torture at the hands of the above stated seniors. It is further seen that she gave the said complaint mentioning the dates as 17th July, 18th July 2003 i.e., the dates immediately after her admission in the institute and hostel. In the complaint dated 23.07.2003 to the Inspector of Police, Velacherry Police Station, the petitioner's father clearly stated that her daughter handed over the complaint letter 21.07.2003 duly signed by him and the local guardian to the Principal for taking action in respect of ragging.
8. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that there is utter failure on the part of the Principal to take action with regard to petitioner's complaint of ragging on the alleged students. Further, the Principal, who was supposed to look after the well being of the institution, its students, their education etc has miserably failed in carrying out the obligations allotted to her.
9. In this background, it is useful to refer to Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999.
"Rule 3:- Mode of Giving Complaint The student shall give complaint referred to in Sub Section (1) of Section 6 of the Act in writing to the Management within three days from the date of occurrence of ragging. Rule 4:- Procedure after receipt of complaint On receipt of the complaint under Rule 3, the Management shall enquire into the complaint immediately within 72 hours, either by himself or through a Senior teaching staff working in the educational institution. On finalisation of the enquiry, if it is found that a student or any other person is guilty of ragging, the Management shall make a written complaint within 24 hours on such finalisation, narrating the full history of the case to the police station having jurisdiction over the educational institution. The Officer incharge of the police station shall on receipt of the aid written complaint, register the case and proceed further in accordance with law.
10. It is pertinent to note that the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999 came into effect by the State Government by passing G.O.Ms.No.366 on 26th July 1999. The occurrence took place in the year 2003, which means, by that time, the Principal of the Institution was very much conscious of the Rules in force and even then failed to take any action on the erring students, who in the name of ragging seriously tortured the petitioner herein.
11. This Court is very serious in looking at the present writ petition, as the petitioner herein was meted out with endless mental torture viz., ragging at the hands of her seniors, (whose names were mentioned in the preceding paragraph) in the institution, in which she opted to study for her academic progress. When a student joins in an institution with ambition of prospective future, it is incumbent on the part of the Principal of the said institution to look after their welfare and exhibit her responsibility in such a way that the students' ambitions having been accomplished. But, in the present case, the Principal of the second respondent institution thoroughly failed to take action on the so-called senior students, who headed ragging in the said institution. The Principal, after coming to know or after receiving the complaint, as per Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999, ought to have enquired into the complaint immediately within 72 hours, either by herself or through a Senior teaching staff working in the institution. However, she failed to enquire into the complaint. On the other hand, with no other option, the petitioner and her father made a written complaint to the police station and the police duly enquired the matter headed by Anti Ragging Committee.
12. Before parting with the case, this Court expresses its total dissatisfaction on the second respondent institution having failed to comply with the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that there was inaction on the Management of the second respondent institution and as such, they are bound to refund the amount of Rs.35,250/- paid by the petitioner for counselling and admission in the second respondent institution. Since it is stated in the counter that they have already returned caution deposit towards admission fees in the institute and hostel, they are directed to pay the above said amount deducting the amount already paid by them.
13. With regard to the relief of compensation claimed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that subject to proof of the offence/ragging committed by the senior students and for the inaction of the management to take action, necessarily, the Principal of the institution will invite higher punishment in the nature of imprisonment and fine. However, as no report was filed by the Police regarding the enquiry conducted by them, this court cannot jump into the conclusion that the Principal is guilty of offence. However, as stated in the preceding paragraph, considering the grave nature of case, this Court is of the view that for the sufferings undergone by her, she has to be compensated and accordingly, a compensation of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) is directed to be paid by the second respondent institution, who shall recover the same from the salary of Mrs.D.Grace, the Principal of the second respondent institution at the relevant point of time. Further, this Court solemnly advise the second respondent institution to initiate disciplinary action against the Principal, at the relevant point of time, for her inaction over the complaint of ragging, even after consciously having knowledge of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Ragging Rules, 1999, being in force.
14. In the result, the writ petition is ordered on the above terms. It is made clear that the refund of counselling and admission fees amounting to Rs.35,250/- and compensation amount Rs.1,000/- shall be paid by the second respondent, less the amount already paid, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. nvsri
No comments:
Post a Comment