Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the office order dated 8.11.2013 issued by the Vice-Chancellor of Tezpur University (respondent 1) removing him from the post of Professor with immediate effect, the proceedings of the departmental enquiry in connection therewith as well as the direction requiring him to leave the University Campus forthwith. The case of the petitioner, shorn of unnecessary details, is that he was appointed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism (MCJ) of Tezpur University in October, 2008, for which an agreement was executed between him the University with respect to his appointment, service conditions, emoluments, termination, etc. He claims that he is an international personality possessing great dexterity and expertise in his field of teaching. He refers to the number of achievements and recognition he received from time to time, but I am not concerned with such laurels and distinction he might have possessed in this case. His misfortune is said to have started on 25.5.2013 when one Miss Daisy Kalita, a student of 4th Semester, Department of MCJ lodged a written complaint with the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Cell of the University by alleging that he had given to her "implicit proposal" in return for good grade and completion of her dissertation which was seemingly sexual in nature. Two other complaints in the nature of collective representations pertaining to class room teaching matters which happened during 2011 (autumn) and 2012 (spring and autumn) without referring the context or date or time to the incident were also lodged against him. One of the complaints was filed by the students of 4th Semester, Department of MCJ with the Sexual Harassment Cell of Tezpur University and the other in the form of E-Mail dated 27.5.2013 was filed by three students of PGDMMC Department of MCJ, namely, Smt. Reema Kundu, Smt. Anusua Chatterjee and Smt. Supriya Ghosh addressed to Ms. Joya Chakraborty, Asst. Professor, Department of MCJ.

2. It is also the case of the petitioner that the said Daisy Kalita again filed another complaint dated 27.5.2013 with the Chairperson, Sexual Harassment Cell of the respondent-University against him, and the same was forwarded to the Complaints Committee on 27.5.2013 by three faculty members and three students of the Department of MCJ along with the signatures of 31 students of the Department regarding the alleged incident. On the basis of such complaints, the Complaint Committee on Sexual Harassment ("the Committee" for short) of the respondent-University held a meeting on 28.5.2013 in which the complainant, four student representatives, the petitioner and two faculty members of the Department of MCJ in a highly biased, unfair and questionable proceedings recommended his termination from service with immediate effect as per University Service Rules Guidelines. On the recommendation of the Committee, he was placed under suspension with effect from 1.6.2013 vide the office order dated 31.5.2013 issued by the respondent-University. Following the said recommendation, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by issuing the show cause dated 18.6.2013 asking him to respond to that He promptly submitted his reply by giving proper explanation to the show cause on 4.7.2013, but the respondent-University was apparently not satisfied whereupon a departmental enquiry was launched against him by appointing an Inquiry Officer. To avoid unwarranted humiliation and the ordeal of going through lengthy enquiry, he put in his resignation paper, which was, however, rejected by the Board of Management, which proceeded to pursue the inquiry against him.

3. The inquiry officer thereafter proceeded with the inquiry on 12.8.2013 in which the petitioner participated. The Department examined the witnesses, who are also the complainants but did not examine him at all. According to the p