The court upheld the necessity of due process and adequate time for accommodation for a public servant facing termination, affirming the rights connected to employment and housing during legal disputes.

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to call for the records of the 4^th respondent dated 26.12.2025 pertaining to the Order of Termination and the consequential Order to vacate the Quarters No.C-1 dated 27.12.2025 passed by the 6^th respondent and quash the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Tutor in the fourth respondent Institution in the year 2011, made permanent in 2012 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Professor in 2023. He further submitted that in 2022, she was appointed as Principal in the School of Medical Sciences, an Allied Health College under Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), which is a unit of Madras Medical Mission.

3. According to the learned counsel, a complaint of sexual assault was made by eight girl students against two technicians of the Department of Radiology, namely Diwakar and Saravanan. Subsequently, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), upon enquiry, recommended termination of Diwakar and suspension of Saravanan. However, despite the oral representations made by the petitioner to implement the recommendations, the 5^th respondent allegedly failed to act upon the same within the time stipulated, resulting in student protests and representations to the official respondents. It is the grievance of the petitioner that without issuing any prior notice, the 4^th respondent passed an order dated 26.12.2025 terminating her from service. Consequentially, the 6^th respondent issued a communication dated 27.12.2025, thereby directed the petitioner to vacate the quarters, without granting reasonable time to secure alternative accommodation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Communications dated 26.12.2025 and 27.12.2025 issued to her, this writ petition has been filed. While so, it is the grievance of the petitioner that by way of an e-mail of the 5^th respondent dated 06.01.2026, again she was directed to vacate the quarters, on or before 10.01.2026, only by a short span of time.

4. Earlier, this Court, vide order dated 12.01.2026, after taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, granted an order of interim stay.

5. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, confined the relief to three requests. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents have issued a relieving order to the petitioner, before two days. However, firstly, he submitted that the petitioner’s DCRG and other terminal benefits have not yet been settled. Secondly, he submitted that this Court may issue a direction to the respondents to issue Work Experience Certificate and to settle all applicable monetary benefits, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6. Finally, he argued that without taking a sympathetic condition of the petitioner as she is a single mother having two minor children, who are studying now, the respondents are tracking the petitioner to vacate the quarters. Hence, he prayed before this Court that this Court may issue suitable directions to the respondents to permit the petitioner to occupy the quarters till the end of April

2026, till such time, the petitioner may not be disturbed.

7. This Court, taking note of the submissions made and considering the academic interest of the petitioner’s children, expressed the view that the petitioner shall not be disturbed from the quarters till 30.05.2026, so as to enable her children to complete the academic year and thereby the petitioner will be provided a reasonable time to find suitable accommodation.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting responden