IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V ND WEDNESDAY, THE 22 DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 25684 OF 2023 PETITIONER/S:

DR S KANNAN AGED 62 YEARS PRAMILA, T C 16/362, EVRA-204, EDAPAZHANJI, THIRUVANANTHARPURAM, WORKING AS HEAD AND PROFESSOR, DIVISION OF CANCER RESEARCH, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P O, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW UNDER ORDERS OF SUSPENSION, PIN - 695014 BY ADVS.

P.SREEKUMAR HELEN P.A.

ATHUL ROY STEPHANIE SHARON RESPONDENT/S:

1 REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE (RCC)

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P O, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695011

2 THE DIRECTOR REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P O, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695011

3 THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE RCC REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P O, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695011

4 THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER {ENQUIRY OFFICER}

REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE P O, THRIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695011 SRI. ATHUL SHAJI, SC FOR REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

22.11.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who was working as Head and Professor of the Division of Cancer Research in the Regional Cancer Centre (RCC), Thiruvananthapuram has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P6 order dated 05.06.2023 issued by the 2nd respondent, by which, the respondents have decided to conduct a detailed enquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment levelled against the petitioner and have appointed an enquiry officer and presenting officer. The petitioner has also sought to quash Ext.P8 notice issued by the 4th respondent directing him to appear before the enquiry officer.

2. The short facts of the case are as under:

2.1 As stated above, the petitioner is working under the 1st respondent. While so, he was issued with Ext.P1 informing him that a complaint submitted under Rule 7(2) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 has been received wherein certain allegations of sexual harassment have been levelled against the petitioner. He was requested to furnish his reply. The petitioner responded by issuing Exhibit P2 reply and denied the allegations. He contended the allegations were unclear and vague and not supported by any evidence and requested that the complaint be dropped. It appears that his reply was not accepted, and he was served with Ext.P3 and directed to appear before the Internal Complaints Committee( ICC). Though Ext.P3 was issued on 10.11.2022, there was no follow-up action. Much later, on 27.4.2023, he was served with Ext.P4 appending the Memo of Charges and Statement of Allegations. On receipt of Ext.P4, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 requesting the respondents to supply him the copies of the following documents.

1. Copies of all reports & proceedings of the internal Complaints Committee pertaining to all allegations against me.

2. Copies of all complaints submitted, if any, in relation to the aforesaid allegations.

3. Statements submitted by all complainants, respondent and all witnesses including RCC faculties, staff and students during the proceedings of the Internal Complaints Committee in relation to the allegations made in the show cause letter.

4. Entire copy of the alleged CCTV footage dated 02.10.2022 referred to in the Memo of Charges.

2.2 He also denied all the allegations levelled against him.

2.3. The petitioner states that the documents which were sought by him were not furnished to him. Instead, he was served with Ext.P6 on

5.6.2023, by which he was informed that a decision has been taken to conduct a detailed enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner herein. He points out that Ext.P5 request made by the petitioner to furnish the records was treated as a reply to the statement of allegations.

2.4 According to the petiti