(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in University order No. 842/ 2024 (C) dated 04.12.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.)
1. This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
“To call for the records of the 3rd respondent in connection with the impugned order passed by him in University order No. 842/ 2024 (C) dated 04.12.2024 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service and grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.”
2. The petitioner was appointed in the Department of Biochemistry in Annamalai University as Lecturer on July 3, 2000. The petitioner became a Ph.D. Guide and has successfully guided 10 Ph.D. Scholars and 43 M.Phil V students in the Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Annamalai University. The petitioner has published 110 research publications in peer reviewed Internal Journals and 2 research papers in National Journals. He has got a credit of h-index of 56 and i-10 index of 96 and overall citations of 9,000. The petitioner was the Honorary Secretary of Biological Chemists (India), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore for 3 years. The petitioner is also a life member and Executive Committee Member of Society of Biological Chemists (India), Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
3. The petitioner has organized 5 National Conferences and one International Conference in the Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Annamalai University. He has co-authored a Chapter in a Book entitled “Traditional Medicine for Modern Times Antidiabetic Plants" published by Taylor and Francis Group, New York. The petitioner has served as a Doctoral committee member of SASTRA University, Thanjavur and Special Invitee and Board of Studies in Biochemistry (Both UG and PG) in Bharathidasan University, Trichy and Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli. The petitioner has been a Ph.D examiner of Mangalore University, Karnataka, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Tirunelveli, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai and Mother Therasa Women’s University, Kodaikanal, and M.Phil examiner of Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Bharathidasan University, Trichy. SASTRA University Thanjavur, Karunya University, Coimbatore and Malangarai Catholic College, Kanyakumari District.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he is eligible to be promoted as Professor of the Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology of Annamalai University, since he is the senior most person in the said department. The petitioner would submit that in order to defeat his rights anonymous petitions have been filed against him stating that he has used abusive language against the students. Following the complaints received from the students, a Committee was constituted to find out the truth of the allegation made against the petitioner for his alleged sexual harassment and use of abusive language. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear for the Inquiry before the committee. The petitioner made a number of representations to furnish him a copy of the complaints preferred against him, in order to defend himself effectively before the Committee.
5. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Inquiry Committee on 07/06/2023 by a communication dated 01/06/2023. However, no documents have been furnished to him, including the complaints. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Committee on 06/07/2023, 25/07/2023, 26/07/2023 and on none of these dates, the petitioner was furnished with a copy of the complaints. The petitioner made representations on 26/07/2023 and 12/02/2024 to furnish the complaints lodged against him by the students and also other materials for submitting a proper reply and for defending his case. Thereafter, only on 12/02/2024 the petitioner was furnished with copies of the complaints made against him.
6. However, the witnesses from whom the complaints were received have been examined in person separately by the Committee with no opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine them. It was an exparte enquiry conducted separately by examining the witness. After examination of the witnesses, the complaint copy was furnished to the petitioner and even before that the enquiry was completed and the report was submitted by the complaint committee on 12.02.2024, itself. Thereafter, the petitioner has received the impugned order dated 04.12.2024 removing him from service under Rule 15(4) of the University Rules with immediate effect signed by the Registrar, In-Charge of the University. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
7. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the contentions made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He would submit that there were several complaints made against the petitioner, namely:
(i)The petitioner comes always late to the class by 15 – 20 minutes (II Year M.Sc., Environmental Biotechnology). The Dean himself sat in the last bench waiting for the petitioner and he entered at 2.15 p.m. for 2.00 p.m. class.
(ii)The petitioner has made most of the students of II M.Sc., to stand for 1-2 hours and writ answers keeping the note book in hand. Further, the main accusation by most of the students is that he is teaching so fast that majority of them do not grasp the subject.
(iii)He uses foul language while scolding II M.Sc., Environmental Biotechnology Students and I M.Sc., Zoology students. They are all very humiliated.”
8. The respondent would submit that the nature of offence committed by the petitioner as against the students of the respondent University is grievous. The students are very scared, threatened and afraid on the acts of the petitioner and they do not have peaceful circumstances in the presence of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has violated the professional ethics of teachers and this was a serious misconduct on his part. Therefore, they pray for the dismissal of this writ petition.
9. Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the records.
10. Challenging his removal from service vide the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court.
11. The petitioner has been imposed with the following charges, on the basis of the complaint received on 17.05.2023 (as found in the reference to the impugned order):
“Charge-1: He has misbehaved with the male & female students and tortured by unparliamentary words, which is against the code of conduct. Charge-2: He has been involved in similar activities previously for which he has been warned. But his attitude is worst and deserves a major punishment. Charge-3: The respondent had physically contacted the students during conversations
Charge-4: Dr.P.StanelyMainzen Prince, Associate Professor in Biochemistry and Biotechnology created partiality among the student at the time of practical examination.
12. The petitioner’s grievance substantiated by documents clearly shows that he has not been served with copies of the complaints and the same after repeated request had been given to him only on 12.02.2024 and on the very same day, the Enquiry Officer has submitted his report holding charges as proved against the petitioner and based upon the same, the 3rd respondent has removed the petitioner from service.
13. A mere perusal of the impugned order clearly shows how principles of natural justice have been thrown to the winds. Serious allegation of sexual harassment has been made against the petitioner, however, none of the complainants have been examined and only based upon the written complaints, the petitioner is sought to be imposed with the punishment.
14. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or otherwise on the impugned order and taking note of the fact that the enquiry has been held without affording opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the complainants and the petitioner has also not submitted his written objection to the same, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
