The court affirmed the necessity of adhering to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries related to sexual harassment.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner, who is Head and Professor of the Division of Cancer Research under the Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram (RCC) and who has about 30 years of service in the RCC, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Exts.P6, P12, P15 and P16 orders.

2. In the year 2022, certain Research Fellows raised allegations of sexual harassment against the petitioner and the petitioner was required to submit his explanation, as per Ext.P1. The petitioner submitted Ext.P2 explanation. By Ext.P3 notice, the petitioner was asked to appear before the 3^rd respondent-Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). The petitioner appeared before the ICC. He was informed that he would be given opportunity to place his submissions and adduce evidence. On 27.04.2023, Ext.P4 memo of charges and statement of allegations were served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 request dated 09.05.2023 seeking copies of the complaint and documents relied on in Ext.P4 for submitting his explanation.

3. The petitioner wanted to give an effective reply after getting the documents. The 2^nd respondent, however, treated Ext.P5 request as reply and decided to proceed with the enquiry as per Ext.P6. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 objection. The objection was not considered and the petitioner was required to appear before the 4^th respondent-Enquiry Officer as per Ext.P8. Ext.P8 required the petitioner to appear on 31.07.2023, but Ext.P8 was served on the petitioner only on

02.08.2023.

4. The petitioner hence approached this Court filing W.P.(C) No.25684 of 2023. This Court, by Ext.P9 judgment, directed the respondents to furnish all relevant documents to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P10 copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted written statement of defence to the memo of charges. The 2^nd respondent-Director directed the 3^rd respondent-ICC to continue with the enquiry, as per Ext.P12. The 3^rd respondent issued Ext.P13 requiring to appear before the Committee. The petitioner filed Ext.P14 appeal before the 5^th respondent. The 5^th respondent closed the appeal by Ext.P15 order stating that the appeal has become infructuous at this stage.

5. The petitioner states that the 2^nd respondent can proceed with the enquiry only after providing the petitioner an effective opportunity to place his version of the case. Once the enquiry culminated in Ext.P10 report, it is not open to the 2^nd respondent to direct continuation of enquiry further. The petitioner was not served with the report of the 3^rd respondent- ICC. The ICC conducted the enquiry in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner hence challenges Exts.P6, P12, P15 and P16.

6. Respondents 1 to 4 filed counter affidavit.

The respondents stated that on 21.10.2022, a complaint was received against the petitioner regarding the sexual harassment they endured from the petitioner at the workplace. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.10.2022. The matter was referred to the ICC. The ICC sought detailed explanation from the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply on

04.11.2022 denying the allegations.

7. The petitioner refused to co-operate with the enquiry. ICC examined five witnesses produced by the petitioner. The ICC found that the sexual harassment complaint is genuine. The contention of the petitioner is that a further enquiry cannot be conducted, is against the law laid down by this Court. Principles of natural justice were complied with in the enquiry proceedings. The writ petition is therefore without any merit and it is only to be dismissed.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the