The duty of an employee to maintain decorum and dignity in an educational institution, the seriousness of charges of sexual harassment and misconduct, and the consideration of admission of guilt and request for mercy in disciplinary proceedings.

1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings passed by the second respondent / the Chairman, Governing Council, Nachimuthu Polytechnic College, Pollachi, in Ref.NPTC.A4-166/2010, dated 19.04.2010, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently, to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as Junior Drafting Officer in the respondent College, he was issued with a suspension order dated 17.04.2003 alleging that the management of the College has received lot of complaints from the lady staff members and a student for indecent behaviour of the petitioner. Thereafter, though the petitioner had personally explained to the third respondent and thereby requested him to revoke the suspension order dated 17.04.2003, the same was not considered by the third respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a memo dated 14.07.2003 directing him to appear before the Enquiry committee on 30.07.2003, without there-being any charge memo mentioning the charges framed against him. He further submitted that the Enquiry Committee, without even giving any to notice to the petitioner, arrived the decision stating that the complaints received from the lady staff members are found correct and therefore, further action would be initiated against the petitioner as per law and rules framed therein. Eventhough he personally requested to furnish the complaint copy and other relevant documents to defend his case before the Enquiry Committee, the same was not considered by the respondents. But, all of a sudden, the second respondent/Chairman, after a lapse of three years, issued a charge sheet on 09.01.2007, levelling two charges against the petitioner, which are extracted hereunder;

"1. Thiru. Jagannathan behaved in an indecent manner to six women employees of the institution by uttering indecent words using indecent language in asking for their personal details and hurting their feelings.

2. Thiru. Jagannathan spoke in a rough manner to students using bad language unnecessarily."

3. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed and during the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner appeared on 30.06.2007 and one Mr.K.Sakthivel appeared on behalf of the management side. Though he was appeared in the enquiry proceedings, he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and finally, the Enquiry Officer concluded against the petitioner finding him guilty of all the charges. The third respondent had issued a show cause notice dated 29.05.2008 to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of removal from service should not be imposed and also further directed him to reply to the show cause notice within 15 days. Thus, in totality, he contended, entire enquiry proceedings and also the charge memo are vague, motivated and concocted story created for the purpose of removing the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner, on receipt of the show cause notice, submitted his explanation dated 11.06.2008, the second respondent failed to consider the same and in contra, passed the impugned order removing him from service, which is, he pleaded, illegal and contrary to law.

4. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India and others ((1995) 6 SCC 157) to contend that imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of the imputation, inasmuch as, he pleaded, when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language and no strait-jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstance would warrant dismissal from service. By