JUDGMENT :

G.R. SWAMINATHAN, J. 

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has filed this appeal questioning the order dated 11.04.2022 made in W.P. (MD) No. 11893 of 2017.

2. Dr.A.Vadivel, the appellant herein, joined the National Institute of Technology, Trichy as an Assistant Professor in the year 2007. When he was working as Associate Professor, the management received complaint that he had sexually harassed one xx for whom he had acted as a guide. The Internal Complaints Committee went into the issue and recommended that disciplinary action must be taken against the appellant. Thereupon, charge memo dated 22.12.2016 was issued. In the meanwhile, the appellant was also placed under suspension. The enquiry committee submitted its report and held that the charges framed against the appellant have been established. A copy of the enquiry report dated 17.03.2017 was served on the appellant and further explanation was also obtained from him. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 11.05.2017 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. Challenging the same, W.P. (MD)No.11893 of 2017 was filed. The learned single Judge vide order dated 11.04.2022 dismissed the same.

3. The question that calls for consideration is whether the dismissal of the writ petitioner deserves to be upheld.

4. We heard the learned counsel on either side at considerable length. It is seen that one Surendra Nath who was also a research scholar of the Institution forwarded the victim's complaint to the management based on which the Internal Complaints Committee took action. The Internal Complaints Committee summoned the complainant as well as the appellant herein. During the relevant time the complainant was a research scholar under the appellant. The appellant denied the allegations made against him and submitted a 36 pages long explanation. After analysing the complaint as well as the defence projected by the appellant, the Internal Complaints Committee gave its findings in the following terms:-

“From the above analysis, the committee is of the opinion that there are adequate evidences to show that xx has been sexually harassed by Dr.Vadivel. Analysis of the depositions and evidences indicate that Dr.Vadivel has not only sexually harassed xx in his room and in a hotel but also blackmailed xx that he would expose their affair. The evidences submitted by Dr.Vadivel do not have any valid content to support his denial of the sexual harassment of xx.

In order to highlight the message of zero tolerance to sexual harassment, to uphold the sanctity of teacher-student relationship and to advocate the principle of earning the degree only by merit, the Internal Complaints Committee recommends maximum punishment to Dr.A.Vadivel and the case may be informed to the National Commission for Women. The Committee recommends that the complainant, xx be provided with good counselling to continue her reasearch work under new guide and she be granted her stipend for the period of her absence during the period of enquiry.”

5. Based on this report of the Internal Complaints Committee, the employer issued charge memo dated 22.12.2016 containing the following three articles of charges. They read as follows:-

“Charge No.1 That the said Dr.A.Vadivel was in the habit of touching the private parts of xx whenever they happened to be alone in his staff room and sexually harassed her for the past two years.

Charge No.2 That the said Dr.A.Vadivel used to restrict her moving with other research scholars and threaten her saying that he will kill her.

Charge No.3 That the said Dr.A.Vadivel used to blackmail her by saying that he had taken the video of their sexual relationship and he would release the same in social media.”

6. In view of the office memorandum bearing F.No.1103/2/2014-Estt(A-III) dated 16.07.2015 issued by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Government of India, the Internal Complaints Committee itself was to act as the Inquiring Aut