The constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee is valid, and its jurisdiction is upheld despite the petitioner's claims against it.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner retired from CSIR, New Delhi, as a Senior Scientist. Thereafter, he was appointed as Director of the Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC). The petitioner claims to have been associated with IRTC from its inception in 1987. He also claims that the IRTC achieved financial self- sufficiency in 2022-2023 and sought research affiliations with the University of Calicut. He is aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice issued by the 1^st respondent in her capacity as the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) directing him to appear before her on 22.02.2025. According to the petitioner, he was targeted with false allegations to tarnish his reputation since he had raised concerns about the misuse of Government accreditation in waste management, resulting in financial loss to the IRTC.

2. The petitioner submits that on 26.11.2024, the petitioner and 14 other Scientists held a meeting at the conference hall of the IRTC. It is stated that the meeting was disrupted by some staff of the IRTC along with individuals from outside. On a complaint submitted by the petitioner, the Police went to the conference hall to ensure that no law and order situation arose. It is stated that on 28.11.2024, the ASI of the Kongad Police Station had gone to the institution to take the statement of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the statement recorded by the Police. On the previous day, 27.11.2024, a complaint had been lodged by one of the lady staff members against the petitioner, complaining of workplace harassment. The petitioner submits that the complainant lady was also associated with the incident that happened on 26.11.2024. Photographs showing her participation have been produced as Ext.P3. The 1^st respondent received the complaint dated 27.11.2024 on 29.11.2024. It is stated that the petitioner became aware of the complaint only on receipt of a notice from the 1^st respondent directing him to appear. Ext.P4 is a communication sent to the petitioner by the 1^st respondent along with the complaint.

3. Alleging that the 1^st respondent had a conflict of interest, the petitioner filed a representation before the 4^th respondent, District Collector, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P5. It is stated that the 4^th respondent directed the 5^th respondent to consider the complaint and the counter objections submitted by the petitioner together and arrive at a conclusion. Ext.P6 is the order issued by the 4^th respondent. A reading of Ext.P6 would suggest that the 4^th respondent had only forwarded the representation of the petitioner and sought further action and report. Ext.P6 is dated 21.01.2025. It is thereafter that Ext.P1 dated 03.02.2025 was issued by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner, asking him to appear in person on 22.02.2025.

4. According to the petitioner, once the 4^th respondent had directed the 5^th respondent to enquire into the matter, the ICC had lost its jurisdiction, and the 1^st respondent could not have issued Ext.P1. It is argued that once the superior authority has assumed control over the matter, no parallel or unilateral action by a subordinate body like the ICC can be continued. It is also argued that the principle of Coram Non Judice will apply.

5. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the petitioner, while working as Director of the IRTC, had indulged in activities which were detrimental to the interest of the IRTC, and the Executive Committee was constrained to terminate him from the post. The petitioner had filed a suit seeking a declaration that the decision of the Exec