The grounds raised in the present review petition is that the writ petitioner has suppressed the fact of earlier complaint and the proceedings made against her right from 7.9.1998 onwards by the Dean and the Medical Superintendent of the Medical College Hospital for dereliction of duty and arrogant attitude. It is further stated that on several occasions, the writ petitioner had been warned for taking leave without permission from the Medical Superintendent, which resulted in enquiry.

2. The review petitioner has narrated the instances of misconduct against the writ petitioner and the ground raised in the review petition is that those instances of misconduct committed by the writ petitioner has not been narrated nor brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition. It is further stated that the sexual harassment complaint given by the writ petitioner against the review petitioner is nothing but an attempt made by her not only to derail the enquiry to be conducted pursuant to the charge memo dated 25.10.2016 but also to stop this review petitioner from proceeding with the disciplinary proceedings. It is stated that the writ petitioner on 15.10.2016 and on 20.10.2016 mis-conducted herself by not signing the Attendance Register in the morning shift and signed the Attendance Register both for morning shift and evening shift in the evening and the same came to be noticed by the Nursing Superintendent and was reported to the review petitioner and therefore, a revised charge memo was issued on 31.10.2016.

3. In other paragraphs of the grounds filed in support of the review petition narrates various instances showing that the writ petitioner has committed certain misconducts and the charges were framed against her and in order to escape from the clutches of the disciplinary proceedings, the writ petitioner has given a false complaint against the review petitioner stating that she was sexually harassed by the review petitioner.

4. The review petitioner has further stated that the Dean and the Head of the Institution (review petitioner) constituted a Internal Complaint Committee in terms of the Central Act 14 of 2013 on 10.8.2016, i.e., much before the alleged complaint made by the writ petitioner and the Committee constituted by the review petitioner, cannot be brushed aside as it consists of members from the faculty working under the review petitioner. In other words, the review petitioner is of the opinion that he, as a Dean himself, has constituted a valid Internal Complaint Committee to go into the allegations of sexual harassment against the staff members. Thus, the said Committee alone is competent to look into the complaint against the review petitioner and there cannot be any other Committee.

5. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that on a reading of the entire grounds, the review petitioner had made an attempt to bring out to the notice of this Court that the writ petitioner has committed various misconducts and the departmental disciplinary proceedings are pending against her and with this background, the writ petitioner has preferred a false complaint against the review petitioner to escape from the clutches of the departmental disciplinary proceedings.

6. While considering the writ petition, this Court passed an order on 25.7.2017, directing the respondents to constitute a Internal Committee under Section 4 of the Act, within a period of two weeks and thereafter proceed with the enquiry on merits and in accordance with law. The respondents 1 and 2 were directed in view of the fact that the complaint was made against the third respondent, who is none other than the Dean and the Head of the Institution. Thus, this Court was of the opinion that the Committee constituted by the Dean, cannot be allowed to proceed with the enquiry and the members of the Committee are subordinates to the third respondent working in the same institution. Considering all those aspects, this Court has dire