P.GOVINDARAJU Vs. MANONMANIAM SUNDARANAR UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for issuance of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the 1st respondent Manonmanium Sundaranar University in No. MSU / R / ESTT / T / COMMUNICATION / 2018 dated 21.12.2018, quash the same, and further direct the 1st respondent University to reinstate the petitioner forthwith into his service as Professor in the Department of Communication w.e.f., the date of Compulsory Retirement viz., 21.12.2018 with all attendant benefits including arrears of salary.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, after 19 years and 6 months of unblemished services in various institutions in India and abroad under various capacities, joined the services of 1st respondent University on 10.03.2004 as Professor in the Department of Communication. The petitioner is possessing B.Sc, M.A., M.Phil and Ph.D degrees. Apart from his academic posts, the petitioner held various administrative positions in the 1st respondent University namely Registrar incharge from 28.08.2012 to 28.03.2013, Member of University Syndicate from 04.04.2014 to 27.04.2014 and Member, Convenor Committee from 23.07.2015 to 15.02.2016. He was the Head of Department of Communications from 10.03.2004 till 20.03.2017. He is one of the approved guide for Ph.D Scholars. 14 Scholars have completed Ph.D and 8 Scholars are doing their Ph.D Research under his guideship. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner he was asked to meet the Vice Chancellor and he met the Vice Chancellor on 17.10.2018 around 5 p.m. on that day. The petitioner was informed that the Vice Chancellor has received some anonymous complaints and a Compact Disc (CD) containing some recorded conversation between the petitioner and one of the Research Scholar. The petitioner answered in affirmative to the question asked by the Vice Chancellor whether the petitioner conversed to his scholars over phone and informed the Vice Chancellor that his scholars used to contact him over phone. After such question, the Vice Chancellor asked the petitioner to leave. While so, to the shock of the petitioner, he received an order from the 1st respondent bearing Memo No. MSU / R / ESTT / T / COMMUNICATION / 2018 dated 21.12.2018, suspending the petitioner from service w.e.f. 22.10.2018 in contemplation of enquiry for the alleged charges of sexual harassment of a research student. The suspension was widely published in dailies on 27.10.2018 for the reasons best known to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent issued a letter dated 13.11.2018 calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) on 17.11.2018 at 10.00 a.m. in the University Board Room, the 2 nd respondent herein and the petitioner appeared before the committee consisting of the 3 rd respondent as Presiding Officer and another five members. After playing one of the CDs out of 9 audio plays using a laptop, the Committee asked the petitioner whether the voice therein was that of the petitioner. The petitioner answered that the voice resembles his voice. The file did not contain any material that would constitute sexual harassment. The 2nd respondent committee asked the petitioner eight questions and the petitioner answered all the questions and denied the allegations of sexual harassment.

(3.) While so, the petitioner received a letter dated 16.11.2018, notarized on 19.11.2018 from the 4th respondent addressed to the Vice Chancellor stating that she had not given any complaint against the petitioner voluntarily but the 3rd respondent forced and threatened and coerced the 4th respondent to give a complaint against the petitioner. After the enquiry which was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, the 1st respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 21.12.2018 placing the petitioner on compulsory retirement for the alleged sexual harassment on the basis of the report said to have been submitted by the 2nd respondent Committee. Challenging the said order of compulsory retirement, the petitioner has come out with the present writ petition.