The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, conducting fair and independent enquiries, and upholding principles of natural justice in cases of sexual harassment at the workplace.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P(MD).No.979 of 2019 dated 24.01.2020 on the file of this Hon'ble Court.)

R. Vijayakumar, J.

The present Writ Appeal has been filed by the first respondent in the writ petition.

2. The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging an order passed by the learned Single Judge quashing the order of compulsory retirement passed by the first respondent University.

3. Factual Background:

3(i). The writ petitioner was working as a professor in the Department of Communication in the first respondent University. The fourth respondent was a Research Scholar guided by the writ petitioner. On 16.10.2018, the University received a letter from the Students' Association along with a compact disk requesting the University authorities to initiate action against the writ petitioner for sexually harassing the fourth respondent. A committee comprising of three Senior Professors enquired the writ petitioner and recommended the University Authority to take suitable action against the writ petitioner based on the University Act and Statute. The writ petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.10.2018 in contemplation of the departmental enquiry into the grave charges of sexual harassment.

3(ii). As per Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted to conduct an enquiry on the alleged misconduct of the writ petitioner. The said Committee recorded a statement from the victim on 16.11.2018. The writ petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee on 17.11.2018. The said Committee recorded the statement of the writ petitioner on 17.11.2018. Based upon the statements recorded on 16.11.2018 and 17.11.2018, the Internal Complaints Committee submitted its report to the University holding that the act of delinquent professor amounts to sexual harassment and misconduct and the committee recommended for imposition of appropriate punishment under applicable Service Rules.

3(iii). Based upon the said report of the Internal Complaints Committee, Syndicate passed a resolution on 20.12.2018 imposing compulsory retirement on the writ petitioner which is the highest punishment available as per Service Rules. This order of compulsory retirement was communicated by proceedings of the Registrar dated 21.12.2018. The said order was challenged in W.P(MD).No.979 of 2019.

4. Findings of the learned Single Judge:

4(i) The enquiry has not been initiated by the Internal Complaints Committee based upon any complaint given by the victim. On the other hand, the enquiry has been initiated based upon some anonymous letter received by the Vice Chancellor of the University.

4(ii). The victim has withdrawn her complaint dated 17.10.2018 when she had appeared for enquiry before the Committee on 17.11.2018.

4(iii). The delinquent has not been furnished with a copy of the alleged complaint made by the victim and he was not provided with an opportunity to submit his explanation and hence, there is violation of principles of natural justice.

4(iv). The victim was not examined in the presence of delinquent and hence, the delinquent was not given any opportunity to rebut the statement of the victims.

4(v). As per Section 11 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the enquiry should be conducted as per Service Rules applicable to the delinquent. In the present case, as per Service Rules applicable to the delinquent, the delinquent should have been issued with a charge memo before initiation of any enquiry. After the enquiry is completed, the delinquent should be furnished with a copy of the enquiry report and afford him an opportunity to submit his explanation. However, in the present case, the petitioner was not served with a charge memo or furnished with a copy of the enquiry report calling for explanation.

4(vi). As per Section-9 of the Sexual