Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.5889      OF     2012      (@     SPECIAL     LEAVE     TO     APPEAL     (CIVIL)     NO.     32358     OF     2010)   

VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU GHASIDAS  UNIVERSITY  …..Appellant  

Versus

CRAIG MCLEOD       …..Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T      

Madan     B.     Lokur,     J.   

1. Leave granted.

2. The Vice Chancellor, Guru Ghasidas University is  

aggrieved by an interim order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the  

High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in W.P.(C) No. 694 of  

2010 filed by Craig Mcleod.  

3. The subject matter of the impugned interim order, is  

three directions given by the University on 02.02.2010. These  

three directions are: (1) suspending Craig Mcleod from  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 1 of 11

Page 2

attending classes in the University of which he is a student, (2)  

stopping him from availing the facilities of the University till  

final orders are passed in respect of his alleged gross  

misbehavior, and (3) restraining from entering the University  

premises.  

4. All three directions were stayed by the High Court by the  

impugned interim order till the disposal of the Writ Petition.  

The interim stay was subject to the condition that Craig  

Mcleod gives an undertaking, inter alia, of good behaviour. The  

impugned interim order also directed the University not to  

pass a final order in respect of the alleged gross misbehaviour  

of Craig Mcleod.

5. In our opinion the impugned interim order is not  

sustainable and while passing final orders, we have taken  

subsequent developments into consideration.

The facts:

6. It is alleged that on 02.02.2010 Craig Mcleod grossly  

misbehaved on campus with two Professors of the University.  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 2 of 11

Page 3

As a result of the incident, a First Information Report was  

lodged with the police and the Proctorial Board of the  

University took an emergent decision to expel him from the  

University for violating the code of conduct and for beating  

and threatening a teacher. Pending a final decision on the  

allegations against him, Craig Mcleod was suspended from  

attending his classes, stopped from availing facilities of the  

University and restrained from entering the University  

premises by an order dated 02.02.2010.

Proceedings in the High Court:

7. Feeling aggrieved, Craig Mcleod challenged the said order  

by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 694 of 2010 in the High Court of  

Chhattisgarh.  On 17.02.2010 notice was issued in the Writ  

Petition and in the interim, the passing of an order of  

rustication was stayed.  This interim order was continued for a  

couple of months.

8. On 17.06.2010, the High Court granted liberty to the  

University to take a final decision in the matter of the alleged  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 3 of 11

Page 4

gross misbehaviour of Craig Mcleod within a week. In other  

words, the interim order was not extended.

9. Soon thereafter, some developments appear to have  

taken place but they are not clear from the record before us.  

Be that as it may, on 22.07.2010 the High Court recorded that  

Craig Mcleod had filed an affidavit dated 21.07.2010 in the  

High Court tendering an unconditional apology to the teacher  

concerned for the incident, which he stated was unintentional.  

The order passed by the High Court also recorded that Craig  

Mcleod stated that he would go to the University on  

26.07.2010 and personally tender an apology to the concerned  

teachers.  The case was then adjourned to 06.08.2010.   

10. When the matter was taken up on 06.08.2010, the High  

Court was informed by the University and the concerned  

Professors that Craig Mcleod did come to the University to  

tender an apology but he was accompanied by several  

persons.  It appears that an apology was not tendered by him  

and in any event the apology, if tendered, was not sincere in  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 4 of 11

Page 5

view of the above situation.  This was, of course, contested by  

Craig Mcleod.

11. Based, however, on the affidavit of apology dated  

21.07.2010, the impugned interim order dated 09.08.2010  

came to be passed by the High Court.

Proceedings in this Court and pendent lite developments:

12. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned interim order dated  

09.08.2010 the University preferred a Petition for Special  

Leave to appeal (now a Civil Appeal).  On 29.11.2010, this  

Court passed the following order :

“Issue Notice.

Interim stay of the impugned order of the  High Court to the extent it stays the passing  of the final order in the disciplinary enquiry  against the respondent. Consequently, the  Enquiry Authority may submit his report,  subject to final decision.”

13. When we took up the matter for final disposal, learned  

counsel for the parties brought to our notice certain  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 5 of 11

Page 6

developments that had taken place during the pendency of  

this appeal.  Firstly, on 07.01.2011 an office order was passed  

by the Vice Chancellor of the University rusticating Craig  

Mcleod from the University for a period of 5 years.  It was also  

ordered that he was not entitled to get admission in any  

course in the University or any affiliated college of University  

during this period of 5 years.  The operative portion of the  

order passed by the Vice Chancellor reads as follows:-

“The Shri Craig Mcleod S/o Shri Rodney  Mcleod, a student of B.E. (Computer  Science and Engineering) is hereby  rusticated from the University for a period of  5 years w.e.f. today and further he will not  be entitled to get admission in any course in  the University or any affiliated college of the  University during this period of 5 years.”

14. Thereafter, Craig Mcleod challenged the order dated  

07.01.2011 by filing W.P.(C) No. 890 of 2012 in the High Court  

of Chhattisgarh.  This Writ Petition came up for hearing on  

10.05.2012 when it was withdrawn by him with liberty to  

move an appropriate application in this Court since this  

appeal was still pending.  The order passed by the High Court  

on 10.05.2010 reads as follows:-

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 6 of 11

Page 7

“In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble  Supreme Court on 29/11/2010 in SLP(C) No.  32358/2010 arising out of an interim order  passed by this court on 09/08/2010 in W.P. (C)  No. 694/2010, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme  Court directed that “the Enquiry Authority may  submit his report, subject to final decision”,  learned counsel for the petitioner seeks  permission of the Court to withdraw the Writ  Petition with liberty to move appropriate  application before Hon’ble Supreme Court.  

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed  as withdrawn with the liberty aforesaid.”

15. We may note that despite liberty having been granted to  

him, Craig Mcleod has not filed any application in this Court.  

We have, however, heard learned counsel for the parties.  

Discussion:

16. It is only in an atypical case that this Court entertains a  

petition against a discretionary interim order passed by the  

High Court (Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd.  

v. Madras Refineries Ltd., (1998) 9 SCC 209, Maharashtra  

SEB v. Vaman, (1999) 3 SCC 132, and United Bank of  

India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110) where, for  

example, the repercussions are grave or the legal basis for  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 7 of 11

Page 8

passing the interim order are obscure (Union of India v.  

Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co.Ltd., (1978) 4 SCC 295); or there  

is a miscarriage of justice (Joginder Nath Gupta v. Satish  

Chander Gupta, (1983) 2 SCC 325); or it is imperative that  

this Court exercises its corrective jurisdiction (Kishor Kirtilal  

Mehta and Ors. v. Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust,  

(2007) 10 SCC 21).

17. There is, therefore, a self-imposed limited discretion for  

interference available to this Court, and it would, generally, be  

more appropriate for an aggrieved litigant to approach the  

High Court for rectifying any error that may have been  

committed in passing (or declining to pass) an interim order.  

Of course, in an emergent and appropriate situation it is  

always open to a litigant to approach this Court in its remedial  

jurisdiction.   

18. Insofar as the present case is concerned, Craig Mcleod  

was alleged to have assaulted a professor on campus.  This by  

itself is a rather serious allegation. While appreciating this, the  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 8 of 11

Page 9

High Court had, on 7.6.2010, permitted the University to take  

a final decision in respect of the alleged gross misbehaviour of  

Craig Mcleod. About two months later, the High Court  

completely changed its view apparently because in the  

meantime Craig Mcleod had tendered an apology to the High  

Court (which was not necessary) and then tendered or offered  

to tender an apology to the concerned Professor, which he did  

not accept since it was not sincere.  

19. The turn of events, given the lapse of time, did not form a  

legal basis for interdicting completion of the inquiry against  

Craig Mcleod. While the High Court may have intended to  

bring a quietus to the entire episode, it should have kept in  

mind that maintenance of discipline in the University is  

equally important for a conducive academic environment and  

that the larger interests of the academic community are more  

central than the individual interests of a student.  In  

Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya and Another v.  

Rajkishore Tripathi (Dr.), (1977) 1 SCC 279 it was observed  

that in matters of discipline or administration of the internal  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 9 of 11

Page 10

affairs of a University, the courts should be most reluctant to  

interfere.

20. It is under these circumstances that we have entertained  

this appeal against an interim order.

Conclusion:

21. Now, several significant developments have taken place  

overtaking the ‘cause of action’  for approaching this Court,  

particularly the passing of the office order dated 07.01.2011  

by Vice Chancellor of the University. In our opinion, it is not  

necessary or even appropriate at this stage to judge the  

validity of the office order dated 07.01.2011.  We may only  

mention that learned counsel for Craig Mcleod submitted that  

the order dated 07.01.2011 is in violation of the order passed  

by this Court on 29.11.2010.

22. Therefore, without going into the larger issues raised  

before us, we grant liberty to Craig Mcleod to revive W.P.(C)  

No. 890 of 2012 filed (and subsequently withdrawn) by him in  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 10 of 11

Page 11

the High Court challenging the office order dated 07.01.2011  

passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University.  We expect the  

High Court to permit revival of the Writ Petition and decide it  

expeditiously since it is stated that Craig Mcleod has already  

lost two years of his education as result of this litigation.

23. Under the circumstances, the impugned interim order is  

set aside and this appeal is accordingly disposed of.

….…….……………………..J.   (A.K. Patnaik)

….…….……………………..J.   (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; August 16, 2012  

SLP. (C) No. 32358/2010 Page 11 of 11