Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Dr. Vishwesh Dayal Shrivastava is before this Court for following relief;

i. A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the memorandum dated 22.2.2015 as also the office order dated 22.2.2015 both issued by the Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (Annexure 14 and 15 to the writ petition).

ii. A writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents not to take any action on the basis of the impugned orders.

iii. A writ, order or direction of a suitable nature commanding the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the petitioner as Librarian, P.K. Kelkar Library, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur and to pay the petitioner his regular monthly salary on the said post, regularly, every month.

iv. A writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

v. Award cost to the humble petitioner throughout of the present writ petition.

2. The factual matrix giving rise to the instant writ petition in brief is that Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur established under the provisions of the Institutes of Technology Act 1961 and is governed by the provisions of the said Act and the statutes of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. The petitioner was appointed on 2.2.2009 as Librarian, P.K. Kelkar Library at Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur in PB-IV with pay-scale of Rs. 37400-67000/-. The post of Librarian is a post in the cadre of Professor. The petitioner is in continuous service since 2.2.2009. During the continuance of petitioner complaints have been made qua the behaviour of the petitioner and such complaints being complaint dated 19.9.2013 made by Pragati Indoria, undated complaint of Madhu Agnihotri and complaint dated 26.12.2014 of one Ramakant and another undated complaint of Shiv Shankar Shukla. On the said complaints being received, by an order dated 10.3.2014 a four member enquiry committee headed by one Shri N.N. Kishore as the Chairman was constituted to examine the complaints against the officials of P.K. Kelkar Library. During the course of the aforesaid proceedings petitioner was called upon to appear before the Committee, at the said juncture petitioner claims that he has requested the authorities concerned to supply copies of complaints. Petitioner submits that in response to his request, copy of complaints had been supplied to him under covering letter dated 5.5.2014. Petitioner submits that after receiving the said complaints he filed a representation dated 8.5.2014 before the Chairman of the Committee and claims that he appeared before the Committee on 9.5.2014 and on the relevant date questions of general nature were put up to him and same were properly replied by him. The aforesaid Committee submitted its report on 31.7.2014 making recommendations to the effect that the Library required new leadership that adresses all the administrative issues highlighted in the committee report. The said Committee in question in reference of Pragati Indoria, the lady who has been the sufferer, made categorical mention that she during the meeting with the Committee spoke about the issues of harassment, which the Committee felt needed to be looked into by the Women Cell, and she also gave an additional written complaint and in pursuance thereof the matter was referred to the Director for appropriate action.

3. On 10.9.2014 and internal committee of the Woman Cell was constituted with Dr. Nandini Nilakantan as its Chairperson, Dr. Mini Chandran as its Vice Chairperson, Meera Jain as the External Member and Dr. Monika Katiyar, Dr. Gautam Dev, Dr. Nandini Gupta and Dr. Devopamdas as its members. The Chairperson of the Woman Cell issued a notice dated 19.10.2014 to the petitioner intimating that 10.11.2014 has been fixed as the date of first hearing pertaining to the complaint submitted by Pragati Indoria for the purpose of enquiry in terms of Section 11