TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1483
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Reference No. Estt./Inq.Com/2010/1451 and with a further direction to conduct denova proceedings by competent members. In the second writ petition, namely W.P. No. 13203 of 2014, he challenged the correctness of the order dated 8.4.2014, passed under Rule 5(1) of the Recruitment and Service Rules of the Institute read with Rule 11(viii) of CCS (CC& A) Rules, 1965, imposing the major penalty of "removal from service", which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under the Government. 2. The petitioner Dr. R. Rajendiran was appointed as a Lecturer in Psychology in University of Madras on 4.8.1993. He became Senior Lecturer, Department of Psychology, Annamalai University on 20.2.2003 on deputation basis and joined as Reader in UGC Academic Staff College, University of Madras from February, 2003. while he was serving as Reader, he has published 24 research papers, guided 8 students in Ph.D., and with his guidance, four persons have been awarded doctorate. In addition thereto, he was also a guest faculty for M.B.A in various institutions like Loyola College, Versatile Business School, AAM Business School, Chennai, IIKM Business School and Madras School of Social Work. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No. 15247 of 2011 came up for admission on 29.6.2011, this Court has granted an interim order of stay for a period of four weeks. 6. During the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 15247 of 2011, ignoring the fact that the constitution of the committee has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 29.6.2011, the fourth respondent has proceeded with the enquiry. Without even issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner, the second respondent, accepting the report of the fourth respondent, passed the impugned order dated 8.4.2014, imposing the punishment of removal from service on the petitioner, against which W.P.No. 13203 of 2014 has been filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while Mrs. Pressila Daissy was working as a Research Scholar under the petitioner's guidance, by letter dated 23.7.2010 has given a complaint that the petitioner had started assaulting her verbally in person and through phone which led her to lot of stress, ill health and made her lose further hope that he would guide her smoothly thereafter. For this particular reason, she decided to discontinue her research work and also for change of guide. Thereafter, the Registrar o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....whose cause a committee was constituted, has made a clarification that she was not put to sexual harassment and also further requested the second respondent not to proceed with the enquiry regarding allegations of sexual harassment. 8. Inspite of the letter dated 22.9.2010 written by the complainant, viz., Mrs. Pressila Daissy to the second respondent, denying that no such allegation of sexual harassment has been made to her, the committee headed by the fourth respondent Dr. A. Kalanidhi ought not to have proceeded with the enquiry, in any event, in the light of Sub Rule 25(C) of Rule 3(c)- Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of Working Women, of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, and even ignoring the order of interim stay granted by this Court in writ petition No. 15247 of 2011, suo motu proceeded with the enquiry and finally submitted a report, finding the petitioner guilty of the charges. When the complainant had not even taken part in the enquiry, overlooking the letter written by Mrs. Pressila Daissy stating that she was not put to sexual harassment by the petitioner, and without framing any charge memo, calling for explanation and thereby fragrantly violating the princi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....complainant, Mrs. Pressila Daissy has come forward in her written letter dated 22.9.2010, addressing persistantly not to proceed with enquiry as there was no sexual harassment in all fairness to the second respondent, the second respondent ought to have wound up the enquiry committee, but he has not done so. Showing personal vengeance, the second respondent proceeded wrongly and by violating Sub Rule 25(C) of Rule 3(c)-Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of Working Women, of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, and also without following the doctrine of principles of natural justice, has passed wrongly the impugned order, removing the petitioner from service, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order shall be liable to be quashed, with suitable direction to the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner forthwith and pay him all the consequential benefits. 12. Mr. A. Mohan, learned counsel for the respondents 1-3, 5 to 7 in W.P. No. 15247 of 2011 and for respondents 1 to 3 in W.P.No. 13203/2014 fairly conceded before this Court that no charge memo was issued against the petitioner setting forth the charges against the petitioner calli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., I kindly request you not to take any further action regarding allegations of sexual harassment. Thanking you" 15. In the light of the letter dated 22.9.2010 written by Mrs. Pressila Daissy directly to the Director, NITTR, it is not known how the respondents proceeded further with the enquiry against the petitioner without even holding a preliminary enquiry with the complainant. 16. Secondly, the second respondent taking advantage of the letter of the Research Scholar dated 23.7.2010, issued a memo dated 17.9.2010 without framing charges against the petitioner and reading into the letter as a sexual harassment of working woman under Rule 3(c)(1) and (2) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, clearly indicating that the Director has proceeded hastily. 17. Thirdly, when a memo for enquiry dated 17.9.2010 was issued without framing charges against the petitioner, it is not known how the Enquiry Committee came to be constituted against a working Associate Professor. It may be mentioned that when the complainant, in her letter dated 22.9.2010 to the second respondent, has mentioned that she did not face any sexual harassment and the words " verbal assault" con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sconduct do not attract the provisions of any specific rule before taking recourse to Rule 3 (1) on grounds of unbecoming conduct, special care should be taken to eliminate cases of a trivial nature. Again the rule says that supervisory officers should look into the matter during periodic inspections and ensure that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3(1) are not initiated on grounds which are unjustified. Since the disciplinary authority has completely given a go-by to sub rule 24 of Rule 3(c), the impugned order clearly shows that the respondents 2 and 3 have acted with an ulterior motive to punish the petitioner for no wrong, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. 19. Turning to the contentions made by the petitioner's counsel that the constitution of the enquiry committee member is wholly illegal, it is pertinent to visit the memorandum dated 17.9.2010, constituting an enquiry committee to enquire into the allegation made by Mrs.Pressila Daissy against the petitioner. The enquiry committee consists of the following members. i. Dr. A. Kalanithi Former Vice Chancellor Anna University, Chennai 32 Chairperson ii.Dr. S. Dhanapal, Professor& Head, CDC....