Authorities directed to take appropriate action on the basis of enquiry report.

P. Sathasivam, J.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.08.2004 made in W.P.No.13165 of 2004, the writ petitioners preferred the above writ appeal.

2. For convenience, we shall refer the parties, as arrayed before the learned single Judge.

3. The case of the petitioners as stated in their affidavit is as follows:

The first petitioner, C. Parthiban, is the father of one Selvi P. Shanthi, student of Bharathidasan University, Trichirapalli and the second petitioner Selvi D. Akila, is another student of the same University. The 4th respondent in the writ petition, Dr. S. Palanisamy, was Reader and Head of the Department of Social Works, Bharathidasan University, Trichirapalli. M/s. Selvi. Bharathi and Selvi.P. Shanthi were students of the said Department. The said Bharathi and the 2nd petitioner, D. Akila were students in M.A. (Social Work) and had undergone the course during 2000-2002. The said P.Shanthi was an M.Phil student in Social Work and was doing her research work under the guidance of the research guide Dr. B. Sethuramalingam and the reader who was in-charge of M.Phil course undertaken by the said Shanthi was Dr. S. Palanisamy, 4th respondent. Dr. S. Palanisamy, always did not have a good sense of behaviour towards girl students. The above mentioned girl students and others suffered a lot during the tenure of their course. In order to avoid adverse remarks in their Conduct Certificate/Transfer Certificate, they did not lodge any complaint at the relevant point of time. The 2nd petitioner Akila and Selvi. Bharathi had occasion to meet the 4th respondent herein in his chamber and he unnecessarily made them to wait in his chamber for hours together and did not discuss anything about the subject, but put indecent questions for which they being female students would not be able to digest or respond to him. The 4th respondent used to put questions like, "did I catch your hands preventing you from writing the examinations?" and "did I hug you preventing from studying for the examinations?". These are all only few among the numerous statements made by him. On 30.12.2002, Selvi. Shanthi had to submit her thesis for approval by respondents 4 and 5 herein and for that, the respondents 4 and 5 called her to the Chamber of 4th respondent and when Shanthi went there, the 4th respondent alone was in his chamber. The 4th respondent left his seat, came towards Shanthi, caught her by his hand, removed her dress and hugged her in a manner which is unbecoming of a Teacher, which could not be borne by any student.

4. The aforesaid Bharathi, the 1st petitioner Parthiban on behalf of his daughter P. Shanthi and the 2nd petitioner D. Akila lodged complaints with the University against the conduct of the 4th respondent. Subsequently, Shanthi also gave complaint. After finding that if the allegations made in the complaints were proved, it would amount to an offence punishable under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at their Work Place (Prevention) Act, 2000, the respondents 1 and 2 herein decided to constitute an Enquiry Committee comprising of four persons. The said Enquiry Committee was presided over by the 1st respondent herein. The enquiry was conducted, all the complainants were examined and the said Committee, on careful perusal of the statements made on either side, came to the conclusion that the allegations were serious in nature and they were prima-facie true and serious action should be taken against the respondents 4 to 7 herein. Subsequent to the report of the Committee, the respondents 4 and 5 herein were placed under suspension and respondents 6 and 7 were transferred to other Departments. While the matter stood thus, the petitioners herein were legitimately expecting that the University would take further follow up action against the respondents 4 to 7 herein. However, the same did not happen for quite some time.

.5. While so, suddenly the third respondent issued a notice dated