reply-to TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com
to worldofaligs@yahoogroups.com,
TheAligarhForum@yahoogroups.com,
AligarhNetwork@yahoogroups.com,
voiceofaligs@yahoogroups.com
date Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 6:53 PM
subject [TheAligarhForum] Taliban Style of Justice and Campus Ban for Lifetime [3 Attachments]
mailing list
mailed-by returns.groups.yahoo.com
signed-by yahoogroups.com
unsubscribe Unsubscribe from this mailing-list
hide details 6:53 PM (54 minutes ago)
Everybody must have read the Aesop’s fable of The Wolf and the Lamb. First the Wolf accused the lamb that he grossly insulted him last year. The lamb replied that he was not born then. The Wolf put another charge that he fed from his pasture and he meekly replied that he had not tasted grass yet. The wolf indicted the lamb again that he drank from his well, and he rebutted that he never drank water and mother’s milk is his food and drink both. Desperately the Wolf seized the Lamb and ate him up, saying, "Well! I won't remain supperless, even though you refute every one of my imputations." And we get the morale of the story; “The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny”. The way the present AMU administration dealt with the trial of my case and that of Mr. Afaq Ahmad, both from the Dept. of Mass Communication, AMU one can only think of that hungry wolf who doesn’t care for anything, but for his supper only.
Okay So It’s Official, I am an Old Boy of AMU now. The Disciplinary Committee held on 07.07.2010 has recommended issuing Migration Certificate to me and also imposing Campus Ban i.e. means Campus Ban for lifetime. The same Committee also recommended rustication Order for Mr. Afaq Ahmad, M.phil Mass Communication for two academic session’s i.e 2009-10 & 2010-11 along with campus ban for the same period.
The Proctor in his Office Memo vide D.No. 2541/Proc dated 13.07.2010 has added other charges to me that I repeatedly asked for the evidences which were going to be used against me and I sought explanation from the Discipline Committee. They thankfully noted in the same Office Memo, “But instead of defending himself and answering the charges he allegedly impugned the entire institutional edifice of enquiry and procedure and proceedings thereunder and made counter charges and posed counter questions”. It is clearly proved from the suspension Order that The Discipline Committee was held in Talibani style where the accused was not provided with any evidence for full and informed defence complying with the principle of natural justice. The Office Memo admitted clearly my stand that I was not ready to defend myself in an unprepared way and I kept asking for evidence of which I am sure that the AMU administration framed me with malafide intention without having any written document against me. “However he neither rejected the charges nor accepted the charges rather he kept on repeating that the charges are vague and he was not provided with any evidence. “
From the very beginning I have stressed on the point that student’s career are taken to be so cheap by the AMU administrators that they don’t even care to comply with the principle of natural justice or with the principle of audi alteram partem which any democratic institution must follow during any judicial or quasi-judicial trial.
The Supreme Court of India has given the following directives defining the “audi alteram partem” principle to be followed during any judicial or quasi-judicial process in the famous case of Union of India vs Tulsiram Patel & Others 1985 AIR 1416, 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 131,
“the audi alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an order to his prejudice may be passed should be informed of the allegations and charges against him, be given an opportunity of submitting his explanation thereto, have the right to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by which the matter is proposed to be decided against him, and to inspect the documents which are relied upon for the purpose of being used against him, to have the witnesses who are to give evidence against him examined in his presence and have the right to cross-examine them, and to lead his own evidence, both oral and documentary, in his defence”.
Thereafter from the Office Memo D.No.2541/Proc Dated 13.07.2010 , it is very much clear that the Disciplinary Committee at the very outset violated the rules set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as they again charged the accused i.e me for asking evidence & for counter questioning which is the right of any accused as mentioned clearly in the abovementioned Supreme Court Judgement. Such clear defiance of the Supreme Court Directives by the AMU administration and the Disciplinary Committee can only be interpreted that Aligarh Muslim University has adopted Taliban Style of Justice under the regime of the present Vice-Chancellor to crush any voice of dissent with the harshest laws available.
The present Vice-Chancellor is only resorting to double standard when he talks about democratic form of protest. In his meeting with the natives of Kishanganj on June 25, 2010 along with the President Old Boys Association, New Delhi Mr. Khwaja Shahid he agreed on certain things where he advised in the Action to be taken with immediate effect portion that to press for AMU Off-Campus Centres, “NH 31 road and other major markets in Kishanganj will be jammed “. So its amply clear whereas he advise natives of Kishanganj to block the National Highway to get AMU off-campus centre at any cost , at the same time he imposes Campus Ban for lifetime to a student with the charges of blocking the university road at 10.00 pm to demand for electricity restoration inside the campus. What if another Prof.P.K.Abdul Azis will handle such road block of National Highway at Kishanganj? Would this present Vice-Chancellor then support such administrator who will throw every people involved in blocking National Highway in the Jail for lifetime? The Vice-Chancellor must answer on such double standard where he pounce on every student who get involved in democratic protest and on the other side asking people to block national highway to get his desired AMU Off-Campus Centre.
I won’t act like a crying baby. I am only putting these facts to people which will have some dangerous repercussions in future. AMU in the recent times has lost many cases in the Court of law and it naturally gave the media the opportunity to question the administrative actions in the harshest language.
With the harshest decision on me and Mr. Afaq Ahmad flouting all rules and regulation at place, the AMU administration wishes to give a clear message to the students involved in any kind of activism that they have the power to torture us mentally, physically, economically for unnecessary reasons even if we go to court and win our case. However they are not bothered with the fact that Court will like most of the cases would overturn their decisions and media would again portray them in bad light. They just want to save their ego. The anti-student, anti-activism forces should be happy only when the Court would support the decisions taken by the AMU administrations. When they don’t, and media shows how AMU still shows their thumb to the rule of law and get punched on the face by court, they must ask how long this should go.
The people at the forums are talking about an influential group. Please make one and offer for crash course on the Constitution and Principles of Natural Justice for free of Charge for the people sitting at the administration. Else, such illiterate people sitting at the helm of affairs would ruin the reputation of our alma mater.
Md. Adil Hossain,
AMU 2002-2010
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Proceedings of the AMU's Khap Panchayat known as Disciplinary Committee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To
The Vice-Chancellor
A.M.U, Aligarh Dated: 12.07.2010
Subject- Denial of fair trial by the Discipline Committee held on 07.07.2010 which exhibited bias, partial and pre-determined attitude.
Respected Sir,
I was suspended, without any prior show cause/explanation letter, violating the principle of audi alteram partem, vide LD No. 2113/Proc dated 03.06.2010 with 03 allegations. I was then served a Chargesheet vide LD.2177/Proc dated 09.06.2010, received by my parents on 22.06.2010 and by me on 26.06.2010. I also received a notice from the Proctors Office vide D.No. 2364/Proc dated 29.06.2010 for attending the duly constituted Discipline Committee on 07.07.2010. In the meantime I sent three letters to your office with the request to provide me with evidences so that I can make full and informed defence in front of the Discipline Committee but in vain. But even though I was denied the evidences which were to be used to substantiate the allegation against me, in violation of the principle of natural justice, out of respect and to uphold the sanctity of the duly constituted Discipline Committee I appeared before it on 07.07.2010.
In the Discipline Committee, the Proctor after reading out the allegations against me invited me to respond. I humbly pointed out the non-provision of evidence to me and therefore I cannot make full and informed defence. In the mean time the Registrar shouted at me saying that University authorities are not here to provide evidence and I am to simply give my explanation. I modestly tried to make him aware of the basic principle in any such proceedings that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. To my utter dismay, the Registrar retorted, “Go to the Court and prove your innocence”.
The Proctor intervened to assert that I know what wrong I have committed and therefore I do not require any evidence. He showed me some pages from a distance alleged that it was a copy of a write up on the net that he had gobbled up money. I meekly submitted that in a quasi-judicial process like this everything should be on paper and nothing can be in the air. I again emphasized the need of evidences which will be used to substantiate the charges against me with sufficient time to prepare my defence to be placed before any Discipline Committee.
The Registrar again to my utter shock stated that I do not require any evidence as things are clearly stated in my charge sheet and he read out the passages from it where it was written that I wrote defaming articles on the internet. He stressed that the chargesheet contained enough evidence. I humbly submitted that there is a basic difference between Charge sheet, which contains the allegations, and evidence, which is used to substantiate the allegations.
The Proctor said that the Deputy Proctor Fareed A Khan (who was sitting there and appeared to be part of the Discipline Committee) has submitted a complaint and is the witness to substantiate the charge that I blocked the main University road because of which the electricity restoration progress came to a standstill in the night of 01/02 June from 9.00 to 10.45 pm. I pointed out that if such thing happened the Chief Electricity Engineer must have submitted a complaint letter because he is the responsible authority for it. But a Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, shot back that such complaint letter is not required and any Staff can report such incident. I again emphasized that the complainant and prosecuting authority can’t be a witness, which is against the principles of law.
I pointed out that the suspension order contained only 03 whereas the Charge sheet contained 06 allegations and therefore it should be construed as afterthought and liable to be quashed. One Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, intervened to press that such practice is justifiable and Proctors Office may add new charges if they find any during the process of inquiry. To which I replied that the allegations added could not have been found during the Inquiry as they appear to be events that took place, if at all, much before the Inquiry and further no Inquiry was conducted and if conducted I was not given any opportunity to be heard by it, violating the principles of natural justice. Another Dean, Member of the Discipline Committee, asked me why I sent all the correspondence to the Vice-Chancellor after my suspension to which I replied I found it proper to address the Vice-Chancellor for he is the competent authority to direct the Proctor to provide me with evidences. The same Dean asked my final stand on the charges against me and I again humbly submitted that the allegations are vague and I require evidence which are proposed to be used to substantiate the allegations to rebut them. I again stressed that without evidence I cannot make a full and informed defence so I must be given a fair trial by providing me the evidence. The Dean replied that I can’t question the fairness and impartiality of the Discipline Committee and it can be added as another allegation against me, I therefore went quiet. Finally I was asked to leave.
University is a temple of learning and any act of discrimination at this stage may impact severely to the natural growth of any student. The Discipline Committee of 07.07.2010 was extremely biased and prejudiced against me, which is proved by the fact that they denied me the evidence violating the principle of natural justice. I therefore feel that it will take the harshest possible action against me, without giving me a full opportunity to defend myself.
I therefore request in view of the above to kindly direct that the entire proceedings be quashed and the allegations against me be dropped as it is by now obvious that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations against me.
Thanking you.
Yours faithfully
(Md. Adil Hossain)
M.A(Prev) Mass Communication, Roll No: 09-MCM-06
C/O Mohd. Chaman, Quarter no F/3
V.M.Hall Compound, AMU, Aligarh-202002
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment