S. THIPPESWAMY S/O. K. SEETHARAMAIAH Vs. MANGALORE UNIVERSITY MANGALAGANGOTHRY, KONAJE, MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT-574 199 BY ITS REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: The Petitioner was an Associate Professor in the Mangalore University. He was employed with the University from the year 1995. He joined the University as a Lecturer and he was promoted as a Senior Lecturer in 1999 and as a Reader in 2004 and as on the date of the petition, he was an Associate Professor. The Petitioner claims that he had a record of service which was without any blemish. The Petitioner claims academic excellence and it is stated that on a project proposal, entirely conceived by him, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research had awarded the project to the University, as a result of which, a sum of Rs. 2.10 Crore was placed at the disposal of the University to carry out the research activities as proposed under the project and the Petitioner claims that he has spear -headed the implementation of the same. The Petitioner also lays claim to yet another project under the aegis of the Ministry of Earth Sciences. The Petitioner also claims to have published several academic papers. It is the Petitioner's claim that the genesis of the slur campaign that was initiated involved two Junior Research Fellows, who were in fact selected at the instance of the Petitioner namely, one Ms. Puneetha Panday from Haryana and one Ms. Divya Shetty from Mangalore, who were deputed to work under the project involving research into fresh water bivalves. According to the Petitioner, the duty assigned to the said scholars was to collect the seashore organisms, water samples, sediment samples from the field and process the same in the Laboratory. This involved much travel and odd hours of work. The said Research Fellows, according to the Petitioner, considered this as a mental harassment and disliked the Petitioner on account of his insistence on adherence to duty. It is the Petitioner's case that the scholars were unable to bear the strict discipline and devotion required in the said research activities and therefore, had voluntarily submitted their resignation on 11.6.2010, without assigning any reason. However, there were several persons within the University who were inimically disposed towards the Petitioner and pounced on the opportunity of utilizing the untimely resignation of the aforesaid two persons to instigate them to file a false and baseless complaint against the Petitioner. Accordingly, it is the Petitioner's case that on 15.6.2010, the two Research Fellows had complained to the Vice -Chancellor alleging mental harassment. The text of the letter of complaint is as follows: To Date: 15.06.2010 The Vice Chancellor, Mangalore University,Mangalagangothri, Mangalore - 574 199. Sir, Subject: Mental Harassment under MoES biodiversity project (MoES/11/MRDF/1/ 62/P/08). We are writing this letter to inform you about the harassment we are being subjected to, by our principal investigator, Dr. S. Thippeswamy of the Department of Biosciences. We joined under the MoES Biodiversity project as JRF in the Department in July 2009 and worked for eleven months. On 8th June, 2010 he had called me (Puneeta Pandey) and final year Ph.D research scholar (Malathi Shettigar). to his chamber after 5.30 pm for the computer related work. We were working in his chamber on the computer. While I was typing on computer he was misbehaving with Malathi at my back with her full cooperation. When I turned my back and saw everything they behaved as if nothing has happened. Malathi did not protest at all. Next day Malathi came and told everyone that Sir had misbehaved with her the previous evening. After this incident he compelled me and Divya, my colleague to resign from the post of JRF. On various occasions in the past, Dr. S. Thippeswamy has been trying to get an opportunity to find us alone in his chamber or take us alone for the field trips or calling alone on Sundays and holidays. He had given us warnings for going for the field trips together, telling that if we ask for going field together we should resign. He had made us stay in the laboratory till 10.30 pm even if we requested him that we will do the remaining work next day. He had forced us many times to work for the NA1P project when they bring samples from the field. He had also forced us to go for the sampling for NAIP project for one week to far places like Goa and Kerala giving least importance to our project related work. He had also forced us to do office related work for NAIP project which consumed too much time from our working hours because of which we could not do our work on time. Finally, we were compelled to resign from the post of JRF after working so hard for eleven months. Without any fault from our side we are suffering today. We demand to change the Principal Investigator of this project and give responsibility to a responsible person who can handle the project without harassing us. We find the project best for our research and worked as hard while collecting samples from all over the Karnataka Coast. Kindly take strict action against Dr. S. Thippeswamy, PI, MoES Biodiversity Project "Inventorying and monitoring of intertidal biodiversity from Karnataka Coast" (MoES/11/MRDF/1/62/P/08) Kindly do the needful. This was magnified beyond all proportion and was made to order, for the designs of the then Vice Chancellor, who was keenly interested to ensure that the project which was being managed by the Petitioner, to be handed over to one of his close relatives who was, as on the date of the petition, a Professor and Chairman of the Department of Bio -Sciences in the same University. This generated a slur campaign, whereby persons who were jealous of the Petitioner's achievements and were keen on ensuring his down -fall, had offered opinions as regards the Petitioner's conduct, without any basis. Pursuant to which, the Petitioner was placed under suspension as on 30.7.2010. This was challenged by the Petitioner by way of a writ petition in W.P. 25617/2010 and the order of suspension was stayed. The Respondent had then filed an application seeking to have the order of stay vacated. The application was rejected. The Respondent thereafter filed an appeal against that order in W.A. 3585/2010. In order to give a quietus to the ordeal and to hasten the process, the counsel for the Petitioner had made a statement before the court that the appeal is allowed and the inquiry be expedited. Accordingly, the appeal stood disposed of and time was granted to the Respondent to complete the inquiry expeditiously. However, the same was delayed and the Respondent had sought for extension of time. It is significant that even during the inquiry, the Petitioner was directed to handover the projects under his stewardship to Professor M. Rajashekar and Dr. M. Krishnamurthy, thereby clearly indicating the hidden designs of the Respondents in initiating proceedings against the Petitioner. It is contended that there were seven charges against the Petitioner which were as follows: (The charges which are in the Kannada language have been translated for the purpose of this Order to English). The following are the charges against Dr. S. Thippeswamy. Associate Professor, Department of Biosciences, Mangalore University. Charge No. 1: Behaved indecently and caused mental and sexual harassment to Miss. Puneetha Pandey and Miss. Divya Shetty, Research Students (Scholars) and Smt. Dr. Taravathi N.C. Reader, Department of Biosciences, who are engaged in MoES Bio -diversity Research Project Work. Charge No. 2: Miss. Malathi. S has been working as UGC Research Student (Scholar) under the guidance of Dr. S. Thippeswamy, Associate Professor. On the evening of 08.06.2010, he had behaved indecently with her and an oral complaint has been given to the President of the Department in this regard that the Guide was causing harassment. Charge No. 3: You have forcibly made Miss. Puneetha Pandey and Miss. Divya Shetty, who are appointed as Junior Research Assistants for the MoES Bio -Diversity Research Project, to work for NAIP Project works also under your subordination and caused inconvenience to the M.o.ES Bio -Diversity Research Project Works. Charge No. 4: You have forcibly obtained the resignations of Miss. Puneetha Pundey and Miss. Divya Shetty. who are working in MoES Bio -Diversity Research Project, and accepted the same in misuse of your authority as the Chief of Research faculty. You have obtained the resignations of those Research students by coercion. They were selected by the Selection Committee, nominated by the University, as per the Rules of Recruitment and the Guidelines of the MoES Bio -Diversity Research Project, and hence the same could not have been accepted without obtaining the consent of the University and accepted the same without approval of the University. Charge No. 5: As the Associate Professor of Biosciences Department, have not performed the duties and functions entrusted by the President of the Department from time to time, thereby displaying insubordination and dereliction of duty. Charge No. 6: Insofar as the progress of the NAIP Project is concerned, since utilization certificate and progress certificate have not been submitted to the respective Department at the appropriate time, the work of the project has been held up and written complaints have been received from the respective Departments regarding the poor progress of the said project. Hence, the image of the University has been jeopardized by your dereliction of duty. Charge No. 7: Under the Office Order dated 30.9.2010. dismissing you from services, even though orders were issued to you to handover the responsibilities of MoES and NAIP Projects to the President of the Department of Biosciences and to Professor Dr. M. Krishna Murthy. you have flouted the said order and even after the suspension, you have kept the responsibilities of the Project with you, thereby refusing to follow orders of the University - you are hence guilty of insubordination. You have questioned the authority of the University and the capability of Dr. M. Krishna Murthy and Dr. M. Rajashekar, in this regard. By the above conduct the said person has violated Sub -rule 3(i)(ii)(iii) of 9 of Mangalore University Service (Conduct) Rules. It is contended that the Petitioner had furnished a detailed reply to the above charges. However, the inquiry committee without appreciating the same, nor the evidence which was tendered at the inquiry, proceeded to record adverse findings against the Petitioner. This was summarily accepted by the Syndicate of the University and a penalty of compulsory retirement from service was proposed and a show -cause notice was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had submitted his reply to demonstrate the baseless allegations and the reasons assigned in finding a case against the Petitioner being wholly untenable. However, the same was rejected and the punishment as proposed was implemented. It is in that background that the present petition is filed.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate appearing for the Counsel for the Respondent would contend as follows: That from a plain reading of the petition, it is clear that the Petitioner seeks reappreciation of evidence and redetermination of findings of fact and substitution of concurrent findings of the charges having been established against the Petitioner and hence would contend that it would be exceeding the scope of judicial review, in considering this petition. It is stated that the University had permitted the Petitioner to issue appointment orders to two Junior Research Fellows, namely, Ms. Divya Shetty and Ms. Puneeta Pandey and who were duly appointed. They joined the project and were under the direct supervision of the Petitioner who was the Principal Investigator. At the outset, it is stated that at no point of time, during their tenure in the University was there any adverse remark about their performance. Inexplicably, the two persons had simultaneously submitted their resignation and no reasons were assigned. The Petitioner was required to refer the matter to the University and seek a decision of the competent authority on those letters of resignation. However, the Petitioner by his letter dated 21.6.2010 informed the University that the two Junior Research Fellows had submitted their resignations and he had accepted the same and sought permission to appoint two other persons in their place. This, according to the learned Senior Advocate, was without authority of law. Incidentally, before the letter dated 21.6.2010 could reach the University, the Vice -Chancellor had received the complaint filed by the two Research Fellows dated 15.6.2010. The learned Senior Advocate while drawing attention to the content of the said complaint, would urge that though the complaint refers to mental harassment, there is no doubt that the complainants were politely understating the constant fear and anxiety of sexual harassment in the lurking presence of the Petitioner. He would further submit that there is no enacted law as regards sexual harassment at the work place and therefore, the norms lay down by the apex Court in the case of Krishnan and another Vs. Krishnaveni and another, AIR 1997 SC 987 , is the only guide and in the words of the Supreme Court, the broad definition of 'sexual harassment' would include the following: For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as: (a) physical contact and advance (b) a demand or request for sexual favours, (c) Sexually -colored remarks, (d) showing pornography (e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non - verbal conduct of sexual nature. Where any of these acts is committed in circumstances where under the victim of such conduct has a reasonable apprehension that in relation to the victim \v employment or work, whether she is drawing salary, or honorarium or voluntary, whether in government, public or private enterprise, such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem. It is discriminatory for instance when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment or work including recruiting or promotion or when it creates a hostile work environment. Adverse consequences might be visited if the victim does not consent to the conduct in question or raises any objection thereto. The Supreme Court has also laid down the guidelines and norms to be observed in all work places for the preservation and enforcement of the right to gender equality of working women and it is laid down that the said directions would be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field. Further, the National Commission for Women, which is a body constituted under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990, has evolved a code of conduct for the workplace which is also brought to the attention of this Court. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625 has further explained and elaborated on what constitutes sexual harassment as laid down in Vishaka, in the following terms: 25. An analysis of the above definition shows that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones, whether directly or by implication, particularly when submission to or rejection of such a conduct by the female employee was capable of being used for effecting the employment of the female employee and unreasonably interfering with her work performance and had the effect of creating an intimidating or hostile working environment for her. 26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment at the place of work, results in violation of the fundamental right to gender equality and right to life and liberty - the two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. 27. In cases involving violation of human rights, the courts must forever remain alive to the international instruments and conventions and apply the same to a given case when there is no inconsistency between the international norms and the domestic law occupying the filed. In the instant case, the High Court appears to have totally ignored the intent and the content of the international conventions and norms while dealing with the case. 28. The observation made by the High Court to the effect that since the Respondent did not 'actually molest' Miss X but only 'tried to molest' her and, therefore, his removal from service was not warranted, rebel against realism and lose their sanctity and credibility. In the instant case, the behaviour of the Respondent did not cease to be outrageous for want of an actual assault or touch by the superior officer. In a case involving charge of sexual harassment or attempt to sexually molest, the courts are required to examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities or the dictionary meaning of the expression 'molestation'. They must examine the entire material to determine the genuineness of the complaint. The statement of the victim must be appreciated in the background of the entire case. Where, the evidence of the victim inspires confidence, as is the. position in the instant case, the courts is obliged to rely on it. Such cases are required to be dealt with great sensitivity. Sympathy in such cases in favour of the superior officer is wholly misplaced and mercy has no relevance. The High Court overlooked the ground realities and ignored the fact that the conduct of the Respondent against his junior female employee. Miss X, was wholly against moral sanctions, decency and was offensive to her modesty. Reduction of punishment in a case like this is bound to have a demoralizing effect on the women employees and is a retrograde step. There was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment imposed by the departmental authorities. The act of the Respondent was unbecoming of good conduct and behaviour expected from a superior officer and undoubtedly amounted to sexual harassment of Miss. X and the punishment imposed by the Appellant was thus commensurate with the gravity of his objectionable behaviour and did not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. With the above legal position in view, if the facts of the present case are addressed, it is clear that on receiving the complaint from the two Junior Research Fellows, the Vice -Chancellor had called a meeting of the teachers working in the department of Bio -sciences to ascertain the facts. At the meeting, the Vice -Chancellor was satisfied that the matter required to be investigated. Therefore, he had requested the Chairman of the Department of Studies in Bio -Sciences to investigate and report. Thereafter, one Professor M. Krishnamurthy, Chairman of the Department of Studies in Bio -Sciences had made inquiries. One Ms. S. Malathi, a Research Scholar of whom the Petitioner was the guide and who has been referred to by the two Junior Research Fellows, had been called upon to state her version of the circumstances which is disclosed in a letter dated 22.6.2010. One Dr. N.C. Taravathi, a teacher who had worked under the Petitioner also furnished a letter. The Chairman of the Department submitted his report dated 22.6.2010, to the Registrar of the University enclosing the written complaint of Dr. Taravathi and the letter of Ms. Malathi, while indicating that though Ms. Malathi had orally agreed about the harassment meted out by her guide, she was reluctant to state so in writing and that on the basis of the materials gathered by him, the Chairman of the department recommended that an inquiry be conducted and action taken accordingly. Thereafter, the University by a memo dated 23.6.2010 called upon the Petitioner to explain the reasons for the resignation of the two Junior Research Fellows. The Petitioner without indicating how he could have accepted the resignations of those two persons, merely stated that they had submitted their resignations of their own volition and that he had not compelled them and further indicated that one reason may be that he had stated about their poor performance in an Annual Progress Report submitted to the Ministry of Earth Sciences. But however, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that on perusal of the Annual Progress Report, there was no mention of the two Junior Research Fellows nor was there any indication of their inadequate or unsatisfactory performance and the learned Senior Advocate would further submit that on verification, the report which was stated to have been prepared by the Petitioner in May 2010 was actually dispatched only on 10.6.2010 and it was prima facie evident that he had accepted the resignations of the two scholars without reporting to the University. and that he had no power to accept the resignations. In that background, the Syndicate at its meeting on 8.7.2010, resolved that the disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the Petitioner and that a show -cause notice in this regard be served on the Petitioner. After the same was issued, the Petitioner replied. The Syndicate, on perusal of the reply, concluded that there was prima facie evidence to hold an inquiry and accordingly, nominated a three member inquiry committee consisting of a Professor of the Department of Statistics, a lady Advocate and a lady Professor of the department of Business Administration and the Petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 30.7.2010. This was challenged by the Petitioner by way of a writ petition in W.P. 25617/2010 and the order of suspension was stayed. The Respondent had then filed an application seeking to have the order of stay vacated. The application was rejected. The Respondent thereafter filed an appeal against that order in W.A. 3585/2010. In the result, the order of suspension stood revived and then he was called upon to handover charge. Thereafter the Petitioner moved an application in the writ appeal seeking dissolution of the interim order granted by the Division Bench. At this stage, the Petitioner accepted that the suspension was valid and accordingly, the writ appeal stood allowed and the order of suspension was in operation. Even thereafter the Petitioner refused to handover charge of the project. At the inquiry, after receiving the reply from the Petitioner to the charges, the Committee conducted an elaborate inquiry spread over ten sittings and it was ultimately concluded on 30.12.2010. Ten witnesses including Dr. Taravathi and Ms. Puneeta Pandey were examined in support of the charges. The Petitioner had examined four witnesses in his defense. Voluminous documentary evidence was produced in support of the charges and written arguments were filed on either side and the inquiry committee, on a close examination of the charges and the evidence, submitted a report dated 8.2.2011 and held that all the charges stood established. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate that the Petitioner had filed a list of nine witnesses, five of whom were Research Scholars working under him and the remaining were the employees of the project. But at the inquiry, five of the witnesses listed by the Petitioner were not produced by him. Two other persons listed by the Petitioner as witnesses namely, Ms. Nannu Shafakaulla, Senior Research Fellow and Ms. Reema Oasan Lobo, a Senior Research Fellow had complained about the harassment they were suffering at the hands of the Petitioner. They had filed a joint complaint in this regard which is annexed to the statement of objections. The learned Senior Advocate would also draw attention to the circumstances whereby the Petitioner was said to have coerced the witnesses to appear on his behalf. In this regard, Ms. Reema Lobo, in a mail sent to Ms. Puneeta Pandey, had narrated how the Petitioner was coercing her and others. A copy of the mail has been exhibited at the inquiry as Exhibit M. 73. It is alleged that the Petitioner prevented Ms. Divya Shetty from appearing at the inquiry and further that he made it impossible for Ms. Puneeta Pandey to come to the inquiry in person, which she has stated in her deposition namely, that before commencement of the inquiry and after the Petitioner was suspended, the wife of the Petitioner had contacted one of the relatives of Divya Shetty and threatened both Divya Shetty and Puneeta Pandey that they will face the consequences if they appeared at the inquiry as her brother was an Advocate and that they would prevent them from appearing. This according to the learned Senior Advocate was sufficient to put them in fear of appearing at the inquiry and therefore it was at the request of Puneeta Pandey that her evidence was recorded via Videoconferencing. It is stated that the report of the inquiry committee was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate, on a close consideration, accepted the findings of the inquiry only in respect of Charge No. 5 and disagreed with the Findings of the inquiry and unanimously held that the charges are otherwise proved and proposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with all terminal benefits and a notice was issued regarding the proposed penalty. The Petitioner had reiterated his submissions in reply that the findings recorded were incorrect and that the inquiry was not properly conducted. However, there was no submission as regards the proposed penalty. The Syndicate, in turn, unanimously resolved to impose the punishment proposed, by a resolution dated 13.4.2011. Though an appeal is provided to the Chancellor under the Statutes of the University, the Petitioner has preferred the present petition. The learned Senior Advocate would submit that the Petitioner was a teacher in the University. The allegations against him pertained to sexual harassment of students and junior colleagues, in which event, there was not even a need to hold a regular inquiry when it was prima facie demonstrated that the Petitioner was indeed indulged in such behaviour. The learned Senior Advocate would cite the case of Avinash Nagra Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and Others, (1996) 8 AD SC 539 , which was a case involving dismissal of a teacher from service on the charge of sexual harassment of girl students without providing an opportunity to cross -examine the girl students. Rejecting the contention of the teacher, about the denial of reasonable opportunity, it was held as follows: 11. It is in the backdrop, therefore, that the Indian society has elevated the teacher as 'Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha'. As Brahma, the teacher creates knowledge, learning wisdom and also creates out of his students, men and women, equipped with ability and knowledge, discipline and intellectualism to enable them to face the challenges of their lives. As Vishnu, the teacher is preserver of learning. As Maheswara, he destroys ignorance. Obviously, therefore, the teacher was placed on the pedestal below the parents. The State has taken care of service conditions of the teacher and he owes dual fundamental duties to himself and to the society. As a member of the noble teaching profession and a citizen of Indian he should always be willing, self -disciplined, dedicated and integrity to remain ever a learner of knowledge, intelligently to articulate and communicate and imbibe in his students, as social duty, to impart education, to bring them up with discipline, inculcate to abjure violence and to develop scientific temper with a spirit of enquiry and reform constantly to rise to higher levels in any walk of life nurturing constitutional ideals enshrined in Article 51A so as to make the students responsible citizens of the country. Thus the teacher either individually or collectively as a community of teachers, should regenerate this dedication with a bent of spiritualism in broader perspective of the constitutionalism with secular ideologies enshrined in the Constitution as an arm of the State to establish egalitarian social order under the rule of law. Therefore, when the society has given such a pedestal, the conduct, character, ability and disposition of a teacher should he to transform the student into a disciplined citizen, inquisitive to learn, intellectual to pursue in any walk of life with dedication, discipline and devotion with an enquiring mind but not with blind customary beliefs. The education that is imparted by the teacher determines the level of the student for the development, prosperity and welfare of the society. The quality, competence and character of the teacher are, therefore, most significant to mould the caliber, character and capacity of the students for successful working of democratic institutions and to sustain them in their later years of life as a responsible citizen in different responsibilities. Without a dedicated and disciplined teacher, even the best education system is bound to fail. It is, therefore, the duty of the teacher to take such care of the pupils as a careful parent would take of his children and the ordinary principle of vicarious liability would apply where negligence is that of a teacher. The age of the pupil and the nature of the activity in which he takes part are material factors determining the degree and supervision demanded by a teacher. 12. It is axiomatic that percentage of education among girls, even after independence, is fathom deep due to indifference on the part of all in rural India except some educated people. Education to the girl children is nation's asset and foundation for fertile human resources and disciplined family management, apart from their equal participation in socio -economic and political democracy. Only of late, some middle -class people are sending the girl children to co -educational institutions under the care of proper management and to look after the welfare and safety of the girls. Therefore, greater responsibility is thrust on the management of the schools and colleges to protect the young children, in particular, the growing up girls, to bring them up in disciplined and dedicated pursuit of excellence. The teacher who has been kept in charge, bears more added higher responsibility and should be more exemplary. His/Her character and conduct should be more like Rishi and as loco parentis and such is the duty, responsibility and charge expected of a teacher. The question arises whether the conduct of the Appellant is befitting with such higher responsibilities and as he by his conduct betrayed the trust and forfeited the faith, whether he would be entitled to be full -fledged enquiry as demanded by him? The fallen standard of the Appellant is the tip of the iceberg in the discipline of teaching, a noble and learned profession, it is for each teacher and collectively their body to stem the rot to sustain the faith of the society reposed in them. Enquiry is not a panacea but a nail in the. coffin. It is self -inspection and correction that is supreme. It is seen that the rules wisely devised have given the power to the Director, the highest authority in the management of the institution to take decision based on the fact -situation, whether a summary enquiry was necessary or he can dispense with the services of the Appellant by giving pay in lieu of notice. Two safeguards have been provided, namely he should record reasons for his decision not to conduct an enquiry under the rules and also post with facts the information with Minister, Human Resources Department, Government of India in that behalf. It is seen from the record that the Appellant was given a warning for his sexual advances towards a girl student but he did not correct himself and mend his conduct. He went to the girls' hostel at 10 p.m. in the night and asked the hostel helper, Bharat Singh to misguide the girl by telling her that Bio -Chemistry Madam was calling her; believing the statement, she came out of the hostel. It is the admitted position that she was an active participant in cultural activities. Taking advantage thereof, he misused the position and made sexual advances towards her. When she ran away from his presence, he pursued her to the room where she locked herself inside, he banged the door. When he was informed by the roommates that she was asleep, he rebuked them and took the torch from the room and went away. He admitted his going there and admitting his meeting with the girl but he had given a false explanation which was not found acceptable to the Enquiry Officer, namely Assistant Director. After conducting the enquiry, he submitted the report to the Director and the Director examined the report and found him not worthy to be a teacher in the institution. Under those circumstances, the question arises whether the girl and her roommates should be exposed to the cross -examination and harassment and further publicity? In our considered view, the Director has correctly taken the decision not to conduct any enquiry exposing the students and modesty of the girl and to terminate the services of the Appellant by -giving one month's salary and allowances in lieu of notice as he is a temporary employee under probation. In the circumstances, it is very hazardous to expose the young girls to tardy process of cross -examination. Their statements were supplied to the Appellant and he was given an opportunity to controvert the correctness thereof In view of his admission that he went to the room in the night, though he shifted the timings from 10 p.m to 8 p.m which was not found acceptable to the Respondents and that he took the torch from the room, do indicate that he went to the room. The misguiding statement sent through Bharat Singh, the hostel peon, was corroborated by the statements of the students, but for the misstatement, obviously the girl would not have gone out from the room. Under those circumstances, the conduct of the Appellant is unbecoming of a teacher much less a loco parents, and therefore, dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross -examination are legal and not vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. In yet another case, namely, Superintendent, Govt. T.B. Sanatorium and Another Vs. J. Srinivasan, (1999) 3 LLJ 352 SC , the contention of an employee that the complainant women patient was not examined and therefore, the inquiry was vitiated was repelled by the Supreme Court in the following words: 6. The Tribunal has allowed the original application on two grounds; viz., (i) that a copy of the preliminary enquiry report was not furnished to the Respondent and (ii) that the complainant or her husband was not examined at the enquiry and, therefore, the Respondent had no opportunity to cross -examination. 7. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, we are satisfied that the order of the Tribunal cannot stand. Taking the second ground first, we find that even though the complainant or her husband were not examined at the regular enquiry, there is other evidence including the evidence of the co -worker and another co -patient upon which the finding recorded against the Respondent can be sustained. The Tribunal could not have gone into the adequacy of evidence. It could interfere only if it is a case of 'no evidence' - and that is not the case here. Coming to the first ground, the Respondent has not shown that there is any rule requiring that the preliminary enquiry report should be served upon the delinquent officer/employee before commencing the enquiry. No prejudice is shown to have resulted to the Respondent on account of not supplying the said report, In the circumstances, the findings of the disciplinary authority could not have been interfered with by the Tribunal. Therefore, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the circumstances appearing against the Petitioner pointed to a long and consistent misbehaviour which had not been brought to light on account of the influence that he wielded over the victims and the fact that the ultimate event, namely, the two Junior Research Fellows being compelled to resign to prevent actual molestation or worse, cannot be a circumstance which would absolve the Petitioner of all guilt. The fact that they ultimately mustered courage to lodge a complaint with the Vice -Chancellor and could partially follow it up and with the further courage to tender evidence against him cannot be lightly negated. Insofar as the law on the question of sufficiency or otherwise of evidence in such matters is concerned, as already pointed out, it is loaded against the Petitioner and therefore, would submit that the Petitioner having been imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement is itself liberal punishment given the circumstances against the Petitioner and this is apparently on account of recognition of his scholarship and the magnanimity of the University.