The importance of affording all parties adequate opportunity for their defense and conducting inquiries in accordance with principles of natural justice.

( 1 ) INVOKING the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, M. P. Human Rights Commission has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 13-4-2000, contained in Annexure P-10 and further to command the respondents 1 and 2 to implement the recommendation of the petitioner-Commission.

( 2 ) THE facts as have been uncurtained are that the M. P. Human Rights Commission (for brevity 'the Commission') is a statutory autonomous and independent body constituted under S. 21 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with a retired Chief Justice of a High Court as its chairperson and a retired High Court Judge and District Judge as its members. The Commission has been conferred with the responsibility of promoting and protecting human rights. According to the writ petitioner-Smt. Roli Shukla and Smt. Anjana Agrawal, Assistant Professors of Government Motilal Vigyan Mahavidyalaya, Bhopal made a joint writtencomplaint to the Commission against Dr. Ashok Maini, the Head of the Department of Chemistry, the respondent No. 3, herein. The petitioner entertained the complaint and registered the same and proceeded in the matter in accordance with the procedure laid down under S. 17 (1) of the Act read with Regn. 8 of the State Human Rights Commission (Procedure) Regulations, 1996 (in short 'the Regulation 1996') and called for the comments from the respondent No. 1 within four weeks. No comments were received within the stipulated time and the Commission was compelled to issue reminder but it did not yield any fruit-ful result. On 9-12-1999 the complainants the respondents 4 and 5 appeared in person before the Commission and submitted that the instances of harassment and humiliation had been increased and it was becoming impossible on their part to perform their duty. Taking into consideration the grievance of the said respondents, the petitioner issued a reminder to the respondent No. 1 to expedite the comments on the complaint. As no comments were received and inaction and indifferent attitude was exhibited the Commission proceeded with its own enquiry under S. 17 (ii) of the Act and sent the same for investigation by its own investigating team as envisaged under S. 14 of the Act. The investigating team carried out its investigation into the allegations after affording reasonable opportunity to all concerned and submitted the report to the Commission. The copy of the report has been brought on

( 3 ) RECORD as Annexure P-2. It has also been alleged that the respondent No. 3 is well connected in official circle and is able to influence any decision as his wife is the Joint Director in the Department of Education.

( 4 ) IT is putforth in the petition that the investigating team after considering the documentary and oral evidence and circumstances of the case arrived at the conclusion that the respondent No. 3 acted against the principles of ethicality and his behaviour towards the respondents 4 and 5 was beyond the sense of decency and modesty. The investigating team found the respondents 4 and 5 were forced to prepare tea for respondent No. 3 and were subjected to indecent remarks. The team found the charges levelled against the respondent No. 3 were proved. The Commission accepted the report and recommended for taking appropriate action. A copy of the investigation report along with the complaint was also forwarded to the respondent No. 1.

( 5 ) THE respondent No. 2, the Principal of the Government Motilal Vigyan Maha-vidyalaya instead of assuring protection of human rights issued show cause notice to respondents 4 and 5 requiring them to explain as to why they approached the Commission directly. The said show cause notice was replied by the respondents 4 and 5 as a consequence thereof an application was filed for withdrawal of her complaint. The Commission at that stage found that the respond