Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as an Office Assistant in Dr.Ambedkar Law University, Chennai, on 1.12.1997. The respondent, vide office order No.2003/121, dated 27.1.2003, had placed the petitioner under suspension and sought for an 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 the allegations and requested for the revocation of the order of suspension. The respondent, vide his letter, dated 20.2.2003, had appointed 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, consisting of Dr.Sarvani, Lecturer, Law University, Mr.Srinivasan, Lecturer, Law University and Mrs.M.Sankari, Stenographer, Law University. The Second Enquiry Committee meeting was held, on 10.5.2003.
3. It has been further stated that the respondent, vide his charge memo No.2003/1068, dated 5.7.2003, had framed the following charge against the petitioner:
"Thiru.A.Pazhanivel, Office Assistant, Law University harassed Mrs.J.Malarvizhi, Office Assistant, Law University and other lady workers in the University by using abusive language".
4. The respondent had sought for an explanation from the petitioner to be submitted within eight days. The petitioner by his letter, dated 8.7.2003 and 12.8.2003, had requested for copies of the following documents to be furnished to him:
"i) The Enquiry report of the first Preliminary Enquiry Commission, dated 14.3.2003.
ii) Statement of Witnesses;
iii) Report of the Second Preliminary Enquiry Commission, dated 10.5.2003."
5. The respondent, vide his letter, dated 9.8.2003, had permitted the petitioner to peruse the second preliminary enquiry report only. The other documents requested by the petitioner has not been furnished 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 University harassed Mrs.J.Malarvizhi, Office Assistant, Law University and other lady workers in the University by using abusive language".
6. The First Enquiry Committee had found that the petitioner was not guilty of the charge levelled against him. However, the Second Enquiry Committee had come to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner. The petitioner had had not been furnished with the copy of the enquiry report of the First Enquiry Committee, dated 14.3.2003, the statements of the witnesses and the report of the Second Enquiry Committee, dated 10.5.2003. Therefore, the petitioner was not in a position to defend himself during the enquiry conducted by the Third Enquiry Committee. The order of the respondent, dated 26.8.2003, appointing a Third Enquiry Committee had been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.24912 of 2003. The writ petition was admitted, on 8.9.2003, and notice had been ordered to be served on the respondent. While so, the respondent, vide his letter, dated 3.12.2003, enclosed a copy of the enquiry report, dated 24.11.2003, and had directed the petitioner to submit his explanation, within 7 days from the date of receipt of the enquiry report. The petitioner, vide his letter, dated 10.12.2003, had sought for further time to submit his explanation. However, the respondent vide his order, dated 15.12.2003, rejected the claim of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to submit his explanation immediately thereafter. Again, by his letter, dated 17.12.2003, the petitioner had requested the respondent to furnish the copies of the enquiry report of the First Enquiry Committee, dated 14.3.2003, and the statement of witnesses. Without furnishing any of the documents requested by the petitioner the respondent had passed the order, dated 19.12.2003, removing the petitioner from service. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the present writ petition before this Court, under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner was working as an office assistant in the respondent University. On a complaint submitted by Mrs.J.Malarvizhi, Office Assistant, alleging sexual harassment, the respondent University issued orders suspending the petitioner, with effect from 27.1.2003, calling for an explanation from the petitioner. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, a preliminary enquiry had been ordered. A `sexual harassment committee' had been constituted, in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1997(6) SCC 241).
8. Based on the report submitted by the committee a charge had been framed against the petitioner and he was asked to submit his explanation. Without submitting his explanation, the petitioner had requested for copies of certain documents. The petitioner was permitted to peruse the documents required by him. However, the petitioner had failed to submit his explanation and therefore, an Enquiry Officer had been appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry and to submit his findings. Based on the evidence available, the charge framed against the petitioner was held to have been proved by the enquiry officer. A copy of the findings had been furnished to the petitioner requiring him to submit his explanation. However, the petitioner had failed to submit his explanation. In such circumstances, 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 counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is seen that even though the petitioner had sought for certain documents like the enquiry report of the First Enquiry Committee, dated 14.3.2003, the report of the Second Enquiry Committee, dated 10.5.2003, the said documents had not been furnished to him before the Third Enquiry Committee had conducted the enquiry.
10. It is clear that the petitioner had not been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself by putting forth his case during the enquiry conducted by the said committee. The petitioner had been removed from service by an order, dated 19.12.2003, issued by the respondent, based on the findings recorded in the report of the Third Enquiry Committee. Since the petitioner had not been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry conducted by the Third Enquiry Committee, as he was not furnished with the necessary documents, it is found to be appropriate for this Court to set aside the impugned order of the respondent, dated 19.12.2003, and to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service only for the sake of conducting the enquiry, by giving him a reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the enquiry, after supplying the necessary documents requested by him. However, the petitioner may be kept under suspension until the enquiry proceedings are completed and final orders passed thereon. Further, it would be open to the respondent to constitute a fresh committee, in accordance with the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court, in Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1997(6) SCC 241), to conduct the enquiry against the petitioner, with regard to the charge levelled against him. The enquiry is to be completed within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is expected to fully cooperate with the enquiry committee, enabling the said committee to complete its proceedings, within the time prescribed by this Court. It is made clear that the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary or other service benefits due to his reinstatement in service in accordance with this order, since the reinstatement has been ordered only for the purpose of completion of the enquiry, as stated above. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
csh