AURELIANO FERNANDES Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL

(2.) The factual matrix of the case needs to be placed in a chronological sequence. The appellant commenced his career in the respondent no. 2 - Goa University as a Temporary Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, in the year 1996. He was appointed as the Head of the said Department, in the year 2003. It is the appellant's version, which is strongly refuted by the other side, that aggrieved by the passing of a resolution by the Departmental Council of the Department of Political Science against them, two girl students along with their friends submitted a complaint to the respondent no.2 - University, alleging physical harassment at his hands. The said complaints(Complaint dtd. 11/3/2009 & 17/3/2009) were the starting point of an inquiry initiated by the Committee on receiving complaints by the Registrar of the respondent no. 2 - University(Under cover of letter dtd. 8/4/2009). The Committee served a notice( dtd. 17/4/2009) on the appellant calling upon him to explain the charges levelled against him in nine complaints and to appear before it for a personal hearing on 24/4/2009, a date that was subsequently changed to 27/4/2009. Contemporaneously, the Registrar of the respondent no. 2 - University directed the appellant to hand over charge and proceed on leave till the conclusion of the inquiry.

(3.) The appellant furnished a detailed reply to the Committee, running into fifty-three pages wherein he raised some preliminary objections to the inquiry being conducted by the Committee, alleged a well-organized conspiracy against him by some wayward students in connivance with the members of the faculty and refuted the contents of fourteen depositions of girl students forwarded to him by the Committee. He concluded by stating that the charges of sexual harassment levelled against him were completely false and baseless. The appellant also addressed a letter to the Registrar seeking removal of two Members of the Committee on the ground of bias and on a plea that being his subordinates, they were prone to bias.