Suman Shyam, J,

1. The judgment and order dated 19/06/2015 passed in WP(C) No. 6558/2013, by means of which the learned Single Judge had interfered with the order of penalty dated 08/11/2013 removing the respondent from service, is under challenge in the present appeal.

2. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Prof. CSHN Murthy, the respondent appearing in person.

3. At the outset we wish to put on record the fact that considering the complex nature of the issues involved in this proceeding, this Court had offered the services of a Lawyer to the respondent since he was earlier represented by an Amicus Curiae in the proceeding before the learned Single Judge. However, the said offer of this Court had been declined by the respondent stating that he would prefer to argue the case himself.

4. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are as follows :-

(i) The respondent was initially appointed as an Associate Professor in the Department of Mass Communication and Journalism (MCJ) of Tezpur University vide order dated 21/10/2009. Thereafter, the respondent was promoted as the Head of Department (HoD) of the MCJ.

(ii) On 25/05/2013, a student of 4th Semester of the department of MCJ, viz. Ms. Daisy Kalita had lodged a written complaint before the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Cell of the University, complaining that the respondent had made an implicit proposal to her offering to give good grade and help her in her dissertation, which seemed to be sexual in nature. A request was, therefore, made to probe into the matter and take necessary action immediately.

(iii) Thereafter, on 27/05/2013, Daisy Kalita had addressed another complaint to the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Cell of the University giving a detail account of the incident that took place involving the respondent. On 27/05/2013 itself, 3 (three) other students of PGDMMC Department of the MCJ, viz. Smt. Reema Kundu, Smt. Anusua Chatterjee and Smt. Supriya Ghosh had also addressed a similar complaint by e-mail to Ms. Joya Chakraborty, Assistant Professor, Department of MCJ, making allegations of sexual harassment against Professor CHSN Murthy i.e. the respondent.

(iv) On receipt of the said complaint, an emergent meeting of the Complaint Committee on Sexual Harassment (herein after referred to as “CCSH”) was convened on the very next day i.e. 28/05/2013 wherein as many as 5 (five) members, besides 3 (three) “neutral” invitees were present. The committee examined the witnesses present including the complainant i.e. Ms. Daisy Kalita, the respondent and the other witnesses. On the basis of their testimony as well as the materials available on record, the “CCSH” had arrived at a conclusion that the respondent was guilty of committing sexual harassment to the lady student Daisy kalita. Accordingly, the “CCSH” had made the recommendation that the respondent be terminated from service with immediate effect.

(v) Based on the recommendation dated 28/05/2013, the appellant No. 2 had issued an order dated 31/05/2013 initiating a disciplinary proceeding against the respondent in respect of the aforesaid charge of misconduct brought against him and in the mean time he was placed under suspension with effect from 01/06/2013. On 18/06/2013, a statement containing the allegation of misconduct was served upon the respondent asking him to submit his written statement of defence within 10(ten) days of receipt of the communication. The notice dated 18/06/2013 not only indicated the documents and the witnesses that would be relied upon by the authorities for establishing the charge against the respondent but had also indicated the action that was proposed to be taken against him which was imposition of the major penalty of removal from service.

(vi) The reply dated 04/07/2013 submitted by the respondent not having been found to be satisfactory, an enquiry proceeding was initiated against him by appoi