Full Judgment Text
$~A-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 23.05.2016
+ LPA 845/2015 & CM 28044/2015 ( stay )
SHAHEED SUKHDEV COLLEGE
OF BUSINESS STUDIES ..... Appellant
Through Mr.Amit Bansal and Ms.Seema Dolo,
Advs.
Versus
SIDDHARTH JAIN ..... Respondent
Through Mr.R.K.Kapoor, Ms.Rekha Giri and
Mr.Rajat Kapoor, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
O R A L
th
1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugned the order dated 17
November, 2015 of the learned Single Judge. The writ was filed by the
th
respondent seeking a writ of mandamus for quashing the order dated 29
September 2015 by which order the respondent was debarred from entering
the College premises of the appellant for one year and from taking
University/College examination for the academic year 2015-16.
2. The brief facts which led to filing of the writ petition were that the
respondent is a student of the appellant College studying BBS II. He was
admitted in July 2014 to the course of Bachelor of Business Studies. An
th
incident is said to have taken place around 28-30 July, 2015. The appellant
College had been participating in a UK Study India Program, a British
Council initiative. As a part of the Program, students from the UK visited
LPA 845/2015 Page 1 of 6
participating colleges in India for three days. 30 students were sent to the
th th
appellant College from 28 to 30 , July 2015. As per the Program, each UK
student was assigned an Indian student called “Buddy”.
th
3. A complaint was received on 30 July, 2015 by the Principal from the
delivery partners who had organized the Program against the respondent
who had been assigned a lady delegate from UK as “Buddy”, that he had
asked the lady inappropriate personal questions. Subsequently, he is said to
have kissed her despite her resistance. It was also alleged that the respondent
had asked similar inappropriate questions to another UK student
subsequently. This was an oral complaint. The lady only sought to bring the
incident to the notice of the College authorities but did not wish to file a
written complaint.
th
4. Based on this oral complaint, on 5 August, 2015 a notice was issued
to the respondent to give his response. He was also debarred from entering
the College premises till the pendency of the matter with the Disciplinary
Committee.
th
5. The respondent filed a writ petition No. 7891/2015 on 14 August
th
2015 to set aside the said letter dated 5 August, 2015. The writ petition was
disposed on 16.09.2015 with the direction that the decision of the
Disciplinary Committee be passed early.
6. The Disciplinary Committee thereafter gave its order whereby it noted
that it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent is guilty of
having been indulged in indecent and inappropriate behavior towards the
female guest students. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that the
respondent be debarred for two years with immediate effect from the
college.
LPA 845/2015 Page 2 of 6
th
7. The Principal in his order dated 29 September 2015, however, on
rd
account of letter of regret dated 23 September, 2015 filed by the
respondent took a lenient view for the sake of the career of the respondent
and reduced the punishment to one year. The relevant portion of the
punishment reads as follows:-
“.. it is hereby ordered that Mr.Siddharth Jain is debarred from
entering the college premises for a period of one year and he
shall not take the University and college examination for the
academic year 2015-16.”
8. The above order was challenged by the respondent in the present writ
petition. The learned Single Judge noted that the respondent is only 20 years
of age. He further noted that no fault or error could be found in the manner
the Disciplinary Committee dealt with the matter or the approach adopted by
the Principal. However, the issue framed in the order was as to whether or
not the punishment imposed by the impugned order is excessive having
regard to the age of the petitioner. The order further notes that the
respondent falls in the category of young adults who has crossed the age of
juvenility but less than 21 years. The order notes that it is widely recognized
that younger the age of the offender, the lesser is his culpability. The order
further notes that the respondent has tendered his apology vide letter dated
rd st
23 September 2015 and has also filed two affidavits in court dated 31
th
October, 2015 and 5 November, 2015 wherein he has expressed his regret.
The order hence concluded as follows:-
“19. A perusal of the above would show that the petitioner is
contrite and perhaps now realizes the consequences of his
misdemeanor. The apology may have come with the realization
that his conduct could ruin his career; which is one of the
LPA 845/2015 Page 3 of 6
reasons which was cited by the Disciplinary Committee in
recommending the punishment, which it did, vide its report.”
9. The order also noted as follows:-
“15.1 The rationale behind a different regime being followed
world over vis-à-vis young offenders, is to prevent recidivism.
It is felt that recidivism can be prevented if, young offenders are
dealth with appropriately with due sensitivity, at an early age.
There are range of sentences available qua young offenders ,
depending on the gravity of offence and the age of the offender.
The range of sentence would vary from absolute discharge to
conditional discharge, fine or compensation for which parent
could not be made responsible, supervision orders which could
include psychiatric treatment, educational treatment,
educational requirements, detention in special homes for grave
offences, such as, murder, rape etc. as also issuance of a
probation order, as indicated above.
xxx
17. There is, however, an another aspect, if I may say so,
which requires consideration as well, without undermining the
relevance or the importance of the aspects which are noticed
hereinabove, by me. This aspect requires that while dealing
with a young offender an attempt should be made to ascertain
whether the sentencing disposition could be tailored as long as
it is consistent with other sentencing principles, so as to
promote reformation and lead to rehabilitation of the offender.
17.1 This, if I may say so, is a facet of the doctrine of
proportionality which, our courts, have often used in dealing
with disciplinary matters falling in the realm of service
jurisprudence (See Ranjeet Thakur vs. Union of India, (1987)
4 SCC 611 ). …...”
10. The impugned order suspended the punishment for the remaining
tenure for the respondent in the College and passed the following
directions:-
LPA 845/2015 Page 4 of 6
“21. Therefore, having regard to the totality of circumstances,
I am of the view that the punishment imposed by the Principal
vide the impugned order should be suspended for the remaining
tenure of the petitioner in the college upon the petitioner
executing an undertaking of good behavior with the following
conditions:-
(i) In case any other act of misdemeanor [which comes
within the ambit of offences prescribed in clause 3 of the
Ordinance XV (B)] is committed by the petitioner, he will, serve
the entirety of the remaining sentence, as imposed vide the
impugned order. I was informed by Mr. Bansal that the
petitioner stood effectively debarred from the college from
05.08.2015.
(ii) The Petitioner, will report to the Principal every month,
on a date and time assigned to him. The Principal will call for a
report from the concerned faculty member with regard to the
petitioner’s general behavior, conduct and disposition.
(iii) The parents of the petitioner shall remain present at such
monthly meetings.
(iv) The Principal, at such meeting(s) will have the concerned
faculty members (who would have dealt with the petitioner in
the relevant period), participate in such a meeting.
21.1 The undertaking of good behavior will be filed within two
days from today in the form of an affidavit with this court; with
a copy of the College. In case the petitioner commits fresh
offences, as indicated above, condition (i) will get triggered
automatically. The Principal, will be the sole judge of this aspect
of the matter.”
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the record.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has strongly urged that the
impugned order is erroneous inasmuch as a person guilty of an offence like
the respondent should not be left scot free.
LPA 845/2015 Page 5 of 6
13. We are unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for
the appellant. In our opinion, the reasons which have persuaded the learned
Single Judge to pass the impugned order appears to be in order. The
respondent is a young person still in college aged 20 years old. He has three
times tendered an unqualified apology realizing that his actions would lead
to serious consequences on his study, career and future. We agree with the
conclusion of the learned Single Judge that the respondent is feeling
remorse.
14. The order also notes that the complainant herself has chosen not to
take the offence done by the respondent to its logical conclusion and has
merely verbally informed the authorities without filing a written complaint.
The humiliation and stress suffered by the respondent in the course of the
disciplinary proceedings would be sufficient deterrent and warning for the
respondent. Further, in our opinion, there is no exoneration of the
respondent. On the contrary, as per the directions in the impugned order, a
strict vigil is to be maintained on the conduct of the respondent. In case of a
repeat offence by the respondent, the original punishment shall be restored.
15. In view of the above, we concur with the view of the learned Single
Judge and dismiss the appeal.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JAYANT NATH, J
MAY 23, 2016
rb
LPA 845/2015 Page 6 of 6