R KARTHIK Vs. DEAN STANLEY MEDICAL COLLEGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By consent of counsel for both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner has come forward with this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the Dean, Stanley Medical College, Chennai - 1 in Proc.NO.7681/ ME4/2003 dated 30-12-2003, the first respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to allow the petitioner to attend the second year M.B.B.S. Course at the Stanley Medical College, Chennai - 600 001 and to attend the examination.

(3.) The petitioner is second year M.B.B.S. Student in the respondents College. In earlier occasion, on complaint from first year students, the respondents conducted an enquiry and found 11 students guilty of ragging and suspended them, who have approached the Secretary to Government, Health Department, who in turn directed to hold a denovo enquiry. In the denovo enquiry, the said students were found not guilty and the report was sent to the Secretary to Government, Health Department, which ultimately set aside the order of suspension. The petitioner has stated that he was not among the said 11 students and has nothing to do with the said charge of ragging since he gone to Palani during September and came back only at the end of that month. It is also further stated that the College was re-opened on 06-10-2003 and he attended the classes. Later, he met with a n accident on 19-11-200 3 and undergone treatment till 19-12-2003. While so, the third respondent directed the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee on 03-12-2003 at 11.30 a.m. He also attended the enquiry and sought for copy of the complaint, but the third respondent failed to furnish the copy of the complaint against him. He also replied to the questions of the third respondent/Committee and denied the charge of ragging. Again, another letter dated 26-12-2003 was sent by the Viceprincipal of the College directing him to appear on 27-12-2003. He attended and was directed to give the names of the students who indulged in ragging during August 2003. One of the committee members informed that a student gave a complaint against him during September 2003 for indulging in sexual harassment under the pretext of indulging in ragging which was also stated to have denied by the petitioner. The petitioner requested the respondents to furnish the copy of the complaint. The petitioner's father also sent a letter dated 27-12-2003 requesting the respondents to furnish copy of the complaint, but nothing was served. The respondents have served the impugned proceedings dated 30-12-2003 and placed the petitioner under suspension for six months with effect from 30-12-2003 to 29-06-2004 and expelled from the hostel for the said period.