CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE: 02-04-2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENWrit Petition No.571 of 2004A.Pazhanivel.. Petitioner.VersusThe Registrar,Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,Chennai-600 028... Respondent.Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for therecords in Registrar/Proceedings/Thiru.A.Pazhanivel/2003/3348, dated19.12.2003, on the file of the respondent herein and quash the saidorder of removal, dated 19.12.2003, passed by the respondent For Petitioner : Mr.A.ImmanuelFor Respondent : Mr.T.D.VasuO R D E RHeard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedcounsel appearing for the respondent.2. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as anOffice Assistant in Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, on1.12.1997. The respondent, vide office order No.2003/121, dated27.1.2003, had placed the petitioner under suspension and sought foran explanation with regard to the complaint, dated 27.1.2003,submitted by Mrs.Malarvizhi, Office Assistant of the Law University.The petitioner had submitted his reply, on 29.1.2003, denying theallegations and requested for the revocation of the order ofsuspension. The respondent, vide his letter, dated 20.2.2003, hadappointed an Enquiry Committee consisting of Mr.Narayana Perumal,Lecturer, Law University, Mr.V.L.Venkatesan, Advocate and Dr.Sarvani,Lecturer, Law University. The enquiry had been held, on 14.3.2003,and a report of the enquiry had been submitted to the respondent.However, the respondent had appointed another Committee, consistingof Dr.Sarvani, Lecturer, Law University, Mr.Srinivasan, Lecturer, LawUniversity and Mrs.M.Sankari, Stenographer, Law University. TheSecond Enquiry Committee meeting was held, on 10.5.2003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. It has been further stated that the respondent, vide hischarge memo No.2003/1068, dated 5.7.2003, had framed the followingcharge against the petitioner:"Thiru.A.Pazhanivel, Office Assistant, Law Universityharassed Mrs.J.Malarvizhi, Office Assistant, Law Universityand other lady workers in the University by using abusivelanguage".4. The respondent had sought for an explanation from thepetitioner to be submitted within eight days. The petitioner by hisletter, dated 8.7.2003 and 12.8.2003, had requested for copies of thefollowing documents to be furnished to him:"i) The Enquiry report of the first Preliminary EnquiryCommission, dated 14.3.2003.ii) Statement of Witnesses;iii) Report of the Second Preliminary EnquiryCommission, dated 10.5.2003."5. The respondent, vide his letter, dated 9.8.2003, had permittedthe petitioner to peruse the second preliminary enquiry report only.The other documents requested by the petitioner has not beenfurnished to him. The respondent, vide his letter, dated 9.8.2003,had framed the following charge against the petitioner."Thiru.A.Pazhanivel, Office Assistant, Law Universityharassed Mrs.J.Malarvizhi, Office Assistant, Law Universityand other lady workers in the University by using abusivelanguage".6. The First Enquiry Committee had found that the petitioner wasnot guilty of the charge levelled against him. However, the SecondEnquiry Committee had come to the conclusion that there was a primafacie case against the petitioner. The petitioner had had not beenfurnished with the copy of the enquiry report of the First EnquiryCommittee, dated 14.3.2003, the statements of the witnesses and thereport of the Second Enquiry Committee, dated 10.5.2003. Therefore,the petitioner was not in a position to defend himself during theenquiry conducted by the Third Enquiry Committee. The order of therespondent, dated 26.8.2003, appointing a Third Enquiry Committee hadbeen challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.24912 of 2003. The writpetition was admitted, on 8.9.2003, and notice had been ordered to beserved on the respondent. While so, the respondent, vide his letter,dated 3.12.2003, enclosed a copy of the enquiry report, dated24.11.2003, and had directed the petitioner to submit hisexplanation, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the enquiryreport. The petitioner, vide his letter, dated 10.12.2003, had soughtfor further time to submit his explanation. However, the respondentvide his order, dated 15.12.2003, rejected the claim of thepetitioner and directed the petitioner to submit his explanationimmediately thereafter. Again, by his letter, dated 17.12.2003, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner had requested the respondent to furnish the copies of theenquiry report of the First Enquiry Committee, dated 14.3.2003, andthe statement of witnesses. Without furnishing any of the documentsrequested by the petitioner the respondent had passed the order,dated 19.12.2003, removing the petitioner from service. In suchcircumstances, the petitioner had filed the present writ petitionbefore this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent theallegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has beenstated that the petitioner was working as an office assistant in therespondent University. On a complaint submitted by Mrs.J.Malarvizhi,Office Assistant, alleging sexual harassment, the respondentUniversity issued orders suspending the petitioner, with effect from27.1.2003, calling for an explanation from the petitioner. Since theexplanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, apreliminary enquiry had been ordered. A `sexual harassment committee'had been constituted, in accordance with the guidelines laid down bythe Supreme Court in Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan andothers (1997(6) SCC 241).8. Based on the report submitted by the committee a charge hadbeen framed against the petitioner and he was asked to submit hisexplanation. Without submitting his explanation, the petitioner hadrequested for copies of certain documents. The petitioner waspermitted to peruse the documents required by him. However, thepetitioner had failed to submit his explanation and therefore, anEnquiry Officer had been appointed to conduct the departmentalenquiry and to submit his findings. Based on the evidence available,the charge framed against the petitioner was held to have been provedby the enquiry officer. A copy of the findings had been furnished tothe petitioner requiring him to submit his explanation. However, thepetitioner had failed to submit his explanation. In suchcircumstances, the Registrar, Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,had passed an order, dismissing the petitioner from service.9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counselsappearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent andon a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seenthat even though the petitioner had sought for certain documents likethe enquiry report of the First Enquiry Committee, dated 14.3.2003,the report of the Second Enquiry Committee, dated 10.5.2003, the saiddocuments had not been furnished to him before the Third EnquiryCommittee had conducted the enquiry. 10. It is clear that the petitioner had not been given sufficientopportunity to defend himself by putting forth his case during theenquiry conducted by the said committee. The petitioner had beenremoved from service by an order, dated 19.12.2003, issued by therespondent, based on the findings recorded in the report of the ThirdEnquiry Committee. Since the petitioner had not been given sufficientopportunity to defend himself during the enquiry conducted by theThird Enquiry Committee, as he was not furnished with the necessary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ documents, it is found to be appropriate for this Court to set asidethe impugned order of the respondent, dated 19.12.2003, and to directthe respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service only for thesake of conducting the enquiry, by giving him a reasonableopportunity to defend himself during the enquiry, after supplying thenecessary documents requested by him. However, the petitioner may bekept under suspension until the enquiry proceedings are completed andfinal orders passed thereon. Further, it would be open to therespondent to constitute a fresh committee, in accordance with theguidelines provided by the Supreme Court, in Vishaka and others Vs.State of Rajasthan and others (1997(6) SCC 241), to conduct theenquiry against the petitioner, with regard to the charge levelledagainst him. The enquiry is to be completed within a period of 12weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thepetitioner is expected to fully cooperate with the enquiry committee,enabling the said committee to complete its proceedings, within thetime prescribed by this Court. It is made clear that the petitionerwould not be entitled to any monetary or other service benefits dueto his reinstatement in service in accordance with this order, sincethe reinstatement has been ordered only for the purpose of completionof the enquiry, as stated above. Accordingly, the writ petition isdisposed of with the above directions. No costs. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarcshTo1. The RegistrarTamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University,Chennai - 281 cc To Mr.A.Immanuel, Advocate, SR.118451 cc To Mr.T.D.Vasu, Advocate, SR.11803Writ Petition No.571 of 2004TS(CO)SRA(18/4/2009)