Bombay High Court sets aside suspension of students for theft from college, orders community service

The Bombay High Court Goa bench on Monday set aside the suspension of of two college students found guilty of stealing from stalls set up on the college campus during an academic conference..A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice MS Sonak instead ordered the two students to do community service at an old age home for two months.The two who studied at the Birla Institute of Technology and Science at Goa (BITS) had approached the High Court for relief after their registration had been cancelled for a semester and after they were directed to pay a fine of ₹50,000 each.The Court set aside the suspension order which included a penalty of debarment from answering the semester examination. However, the Court did not interfere with the ₹50,000 fine imposed on the two students. The community service period (two hours a day for two months) would start from February 1, the Court added. .The two students (petitioners) claimed in their petition that the institute had filed a complaint against five students including the petitioners.The two students were accused of being involved in the theft of potato chips, chocolates, sanitisers, pens, notepads, mobile phone stands, two desk lamps and three Bluetooth speakers from stalls on the college campus. The students claimed that they had taken these items from the stall under the impression that it was an abandoned stall.The students submitted that they were never shown the complaint, but that they had admitted to the act and even tendered an apology in writing. They had also returned the items.The petitioners further pointed out that the three other students who had been accused of the same offence had been pardoned by the university. Such leniency was not being extended to them, the Court was told..The Court had earlier asked the Institute's Director to reconsider the punishment imposed on the two students.The Court noted that the University Grants Commission (UGC) Guidelines allowed the imposition of reformative penalties like community service for student misconduct. Such a penalty could be imposed on the students (instead of suspension), the Court had suggested. However, the Director replied that no mercy ought to be shown to the two students, prompting the bench to express that it was not pleased."To say the least, this should not have been the approach of the Director, particularly when dealing with two 18-year-old students from his Institute," the Court said. Such a response from the director seemed to be a negative reaction against the students who ‘dared’ to seek the court’s intervention against his decision, the Court added. Nevertheless, it refrained from saying more on this aspect since the students were yet to complete their education with the institute.“Though we are hurt by this approach of the Director, we refrain from saying anything more because we are mindful that the two petitioners before us have to complete their education with the respondents for the next few years and not be scarred for life due to the indiscretion or even indiscipline indulged by them on this one occasion," the Court said..The Court also observed that natural justice principles were affected when the students were not shown a copy of the complaint against them, thereby preventing them from offering a rebuttal.The Court also added that there appeared to be an element of discrimination to the manner in which the two petitioners were punished when compared to how the other three accused students were treated. The bench acknowledged that while courts must generally be slow to interfere with internal affairs of a university in disciplinary matters, the institute cannot claim any immunity when there is a breach of natural justice. The Court proceeded to quash the suspension of the two students and ordered that they do community service instead. "Although there is not much material as such to distinguish between the role played by the petitioners and the remaining three students, still, accepting the institute's case that there was some difference, this is a fit case where the petitioners, in addition to payment of a fine of ₹50,000, must undertake community service for a period of two moths and for two hours a day," the Court's order stated..Advocates Parag Rao and Ajay Menon appeared for the students.Advocates Pravin Faldessai and P Tari appeared for BITS..[Read order]