Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College (1973)

[Right of Cross-examination]

FACTS:

1. The appellants were Second Year students of the college and lived in a hostel attached to the college. On the night between June 10 and 11, 1972, some male students of the college were found sitting on the compound wall of the girls Hostel.

2. Later they entered the compound and were seen walking without clothes on them. They went near the windows of the rooms of some of the girls and tried to pull the hand of one of the girls. Some five of these boys then climbed up along the drain pipes to the terrace of the girls Hostel where a few girls were doing their studies. On seeing them, the girls raised an alarm following which the students ran away. The girls recognised four out of these male students.

3. On June 14, 1972, a complaint was received by the Principal from 36 girl students residing in the Girls Hostel alleging the above facts. The Principal ordered an enquiry to be conducted by three members of the staff.

4. The students were called one after another and the contents of the complaint were explained, but the names of the girls who had made the complaint were not disclosed. They were also given a charge which ran as follows:

   “A complaint has been lodged that you trespassed into the premises of the girls hostel late night of June 10 and 11, 1972, made unauthorized entry into the Junior Girls Hostel. Further you have been accused of gross misconduct. You are, therefore, asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against you for the misconduct. You are directed to file your reply immediately to the Enquiry Committee and appear before the Committee as and when required. Non-compliance will lead to an ex-parte decision.”

5. The Committee found the students guilty of gross misconduct and recommended that they be expelled from the college for a minimum period of two calendar years and also from the hostel.

6. The appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, which held that rules of natural justice were not inflexible and that the requirements of natural justice had been satisfied. The Petition was dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the rules of natural justice have been transgressed in the present case?

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

Their chief contention was that rules of natural justice had not been followed before the Order was passed against them expelling them from the college. They submitted that the enquiry had been held behind their back; the witnesses who gave evidence against them were not examined in their presence; there was no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses with a view to test their veracity; that the Committee’s report was not made available to them and for all these reasons the enquiry was vitiated and the Order passed by the Principal was illegal.

CASE REFERRED TO:

In Union of India v. P.K. Roy [AIR 1968 SC 850] that the doctrine of natural justice cannot be imprisoned within strait-jacket of a rigid formula and its application depends upon several factors.

In Byrnee v. Kinematograph Renters Society Ltd. [(1968) 2 All ER 579], Harman, J., observed “What, then, are the requirements of natural justice in a case of this kind? First, I think that the person accused should know the nature of the accusation made-; secondly that he should be given an opportunity to state his case; and thirdly, of course, that the tribunal should act in good faith. I do not think that there really is anything more”.

RATIONALE:

1. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth. Another essential is that the person accused should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case.

2. Under the circumstances of the case the requirements of natural justice were fulfilled. The High Court was plainly right in holding that principles of natural justice are not inflexible and may differ in different circumstances. In the present case the complaint made to the Principal related to an extremely serious matter as it involved not merely internal discipline but the safety of the girl students living in the Hostel under the guardianship of the college authorities.

3. Rules of natural justice cannot remain the same applying to all conditions. The Court referred to statutes like the Goonda Acts which permit evidence being collected behind the back of the accused and the accused being merely asked to represent against the main charges. In such cases, there is no question of the witnesses being called and the accused being given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The reason is obvious: No witness will come forward to give evidence in the presence of the goonda. However unsavoury the procedure may appear to a judicial mind, these are facts of life which are to be faced.

HELD:

The girls who were molested that night would not have come forward to give evidence in any regular enquiry and if a strict enquiry like the one conducted in a court of law were to be imposed in such matters, the girls would have had to go under the constant fear of molestation by the male students who were capable of such indecencies. Under the circumstances the course followed by the Principal was a wise one. The Committee whose integrity could not be impeached collected and shifted the evidence given by the girls. Thereafter the students definitely named by the girls were informed about the complaint against them and the charge. They were given an opportunity to state their case. We do not think that the facts and circumstances of this case require anything more to be done.

There is no substance in the appeal which must be dismissed. The appeal is dismissed.