ORDER :

V.M. Velumani, J.

1. Writ Petition is filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in his proceedings Ref. No. MKU/SO/ICC/CRS/2019 dated 22.08.2019 passed by the 1st Respondent and quash the same on the ground that the same is arbitrary, illegal and without any legal basis and consequently directing the 1st Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner as a Professor.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

(a). The petitioner is working as Professor and Head Centre for Filament and Electronic Media Studies, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai-625 021. The 2nd respondent was allotted under the supervision of petitioner for full-time research programme by the 1st respondent vide Ref. No. R1/FT/Regn/JMC/17, dated 09.10.2017 in Journalism and Communication and she joined the full-time research program on 23.10.2017.

(b). The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent did not attend the Centre on 02.11.2018, but the petitioner found that she had signed the attendance register on anterior days for forthcoming days. The petitioner contacted the 2nd respondent on 02.11.2018 at 03.00 P.M. over telephone from the centre. The petitioner communicated message of absence through SMS/WhatsApp/E-mail. The 2nd respondent replied that she came to the centre and due to physical illness, she went to hostel. On verifying the hostel attendance, it was found that she was not marked present on that date i.e., on 02.11.2018.

(c). The 2nd respondent normally use e-mail and WhatsApp for communication and also for submitting her research papers even at late night. She visited the library in the Malayalam University of Kerala for one month and re-joined on 03.12.2018 and sent an e-mail to the petitioner about her re-joining, as the petitioner was on Duty Leave on that day. On 04.12.2018, the petitioner issued a letter to the 2nd respondent seeking explanation for unauthorized absence and providing false claims and attendance. The petitioner was shocked and surprised that the 2nd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner on 06.12.2018 making false allegations that-

"(i) Petitioner made inappropriate comments for sexual favours

(ii) Not arranging table on her wish and he

(iii) Demanded bribe of Rs. 2,00,000/- for process of sanction of admission"

(d) The 4th respondent constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to enquire the complaint against the petitioner. The constitution of the said Committee is against the regulations of the UGC norms and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act) [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"]

(e) The complaint of the 2nd respondent before the 4th respondent is that petitioner distributed an audio record expressing that a sexual malfeasance conversation which abused her is the main sexual harassment charge. The language spoken in the audio record is Malayalam and the 4th respondent has got an expert opinion from a Professor in Malayalam from Tirur University, Kerala. The expert gave an opinion that he could not find any element of misconduct by the petitioner. Therefore, the complaint made by the 2nd respondent is a false complaint which does not fall within the definition of the Section 2(n) of the Act.

(f) The 4th respondent Committee was not properly constituted. As per the Rules of 1st respondent, Head of Departments cannot be nominated to the Committee. One Dr. S. Rajasabala, who assigned the report is an Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Theoretical Physics who is not in the list of ICC members. The petitioner was called for enquiry on 12.12.2018 and 21.01.2019. On both the occasions, the petitioner submitted written replies stating that he is innocent. The 2nd respondent did not produce the original voice recorded conversation but produced only doctored wrote CD and 4th respondent did not call upon the 2nd respondent to produce the original s