DERRICK JOY Vs. DIRECTOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners, students of a Government Polytechnic College, face Ext. P2 order imposing removal from certain semesters. Petitioners 1 and 7 are barred from attending classes for 4 semesters spreading through the academic years 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The other petitioners are barred for 2 semesters spreading over the academic year 2009-2010. All of them, except two, are also barred from appearing in the examinations, while two are permitted to appear in the supplementary examinations. Petitioners challenge it. The plea of the petitioners is that the allegations against them, of having indulged in ragging a deaf and dump student, is unfounded and there is no provision in the college calender to dismiss a student from the college. They plead that the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, hereinafter referred to as the 'Kerala Act', does not. contain any provision authorising dismissal but provides for only suspension of students against whom accusation of ragging is made.

(2.) The petitioners admit that, an enquiry was conducted but plead that it was thoroughly biased and contend that even before the enquiry, those who had participated in the enquiry had intimated the petitioners that they will be expelled. They plead that they had given statements in the enquiry, expressing their total innocence and that they, including one physically challenged, are targeted at, on the intervention of some politicians.

(3.) The petitioners further plead that the alleged victim is the real wrong doer and that he bad sexual perverts and had exhibited obnoxious and indecent conduct. It is pointed out that the mother of the victim was forced to change her version later and the enquiry had not focused on the conduct attributedv to the alleged victim The petitioners rely heavily on the stand taken by the resident tutor who was in charge of the hostel and who was placed under suspension. following the incident.