C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.

The two petitioners, who are Third Year B.Sc. Nursing students in the School of Medical Education run by, the Mahatma Gandhi University at Kottayam are challenging their suspension from the institution on account of the criminal case pending against them before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ettumannur, for ragging punishable under S.4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998, hereinafter called the "Actâ€. FIR is filed against the petitioners based on Ext.P4 complaint filed by a first year B.Sc. Nursing student of the same School by name Ms. Supimol on 19.11.2005 before the District Superintendent of Police stating that the two petitioners were supporters of two boys by name Ranjith and Sherine who ragged and sexually assaulted the complainant. The main allegation against the petitioners in Ext.P4 which led to filing of FIR is that they along with other girls ragged the complaint in the ladies hostel by compelling the complainant to sing, dance, jump, etc. Even though Ext.P4 does not contain the date on which petitioners ragged the complainant in the hostel, in the FIR filed by the police, the date of ragging by the petitioners was stated as 23.10.2005. However, later, additional report was filed by the police changing the date of 'ragging as 23.9.2005. Petitioners, in support of their denial of the charges, have produced copy of the attendance register and clinical rotation plan for third year Nursing degree students maintained by the Medical College Hospital which show that petitioners were on night duty in the hospital on the Alleged date of ragging that is on 23.9.2005 from 6 P.M. to 7.30 A.M., whereas the, Alleged ragging under the final police report took place at 8.30 P.M. on that day. I do not think it either proper or required for this Court to consider the merits of the pending criminal complaint in this proceeding wherein petitioners are only challenging their continued suspension from college for more than six months.

2. While S.5 of the Act provides for dismissal of a student on conviction S.4, S.6 of the Act authorises educational institution to suspend a student found prima facie involved in ragging based on complaint filed by the victim or his/her parent, guardian or any teacher of the educational institution. The first suspension order issued to both the petitioners on the same date, namely, 26.11.2005 only states that suspension is “on account of alleged involvement of the petitioners in the ragging of a girl student on 21.10.2005.†When petitioners challenged, this suspension order in this court, this court wide judgment 9.1.2006 directed the Vice‑Chancellor of the University to refer the matter for derision by the Board of adjudication of Students Grievance. The Board heard the petitioners on 7.3.2006, and considered the duty register of the Medical College Hospital produced by the petitioners, which shows that both the petitioners were on night duty from 6 P.M. to 7.30 A.M. at the Medical College Hospital on 23.9.2005, when the alleged ragging according to the criminal case filed by the police took place in the Ladies Hostel. However, the Board without entering into any finding about the prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the ragging; retained their suspension order vide impugned proceedings produced as Ext.P16 in WPC.16911 of 2006 and Ext.P8 in WPC.13785 of 2006 after observing that petitioners are not absolved of the charges by the judicial First Class Magistrate before whom case is pending. Petitioners are challenging the common order on the ground that there is no complaint of ragging against them by victim or parent or guardian or teacher and there is no prima facie case established under S.6 of the Act. It is to be noted that no complaint was filed before the university or college authorities about the ragging by the victim or by her parents or guardian or any teacher to initiate action under S.6 of the Act. It is further stat