MANU/GH/0438/2015

Equivalent Citation: 2015(3)GLT346

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI

W.P.(C) No. 6558 of 2013
Decided On: 19.06.2015
Appellants: C.S.H.N. Murthy
Vs.
Respondent: Tezpur University and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R. Mazumdar, Amicus Curiae
For Respondents/Defendant: N.C. Das, Sr. SC and B. Choudhury
JUDGMENT
Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.
1 . In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the office order
dated 8.11.2013 issued by the Vice-Chancellor of Tezpur University (respondent 1)
removing him from the post of Professor with immediate effect, the proceedings of
the departmental enquiry in connection therewith as well as the direction requiring
him to leave the University Campus forthwith. The case of the petitioner, shorn of
unnecessary details, is that he was appointed as an Associate Professor in the
Department of Mass Communication and Journalism (MCJ) of Tezpur University in
October, 2008, for which an agreement was executed between him the University
with respect to his appointment, service conditions, emoluments, termination, etc. He
claims that he is an international personality possessing great dexterity and expertise
in his field of teaching. He refers to the number of achievements and recognition he
received from time to time, but I am not concerned with such laurels and distinction
he might have possessed in this case. His misfortune is said to have started on
25.5.2013 when one Miss Daisy Kalita, a student of 4th Semester, Department of MCJ
lodged a written complaint with the Chairperson of the Sexual Harassment Cell of the
University by alleging that he had given to her "implicit proposal" in return for good
grade and completion of her dissertation which was seemingly sexual in nature. Two
other complaints in the nature of collective representations pertaining to class room
teaching matters which happened during 2011 (autumn) and 2012 (spring and
autumn) without referring the context or date or time to the incident were also
lodged against him. One of the complaints was filed by the students of 4th Semester,
Department of MCJ with the Sexual Harassment Cell of Tezpur University and the
other in the form of E-Mail dated 27.5.2013 was filed by three students of PGDMMC
Department of MCJ, namely, Smt. Reema Kundu, Smt. Anusua Chatterjee and Smt.
Supriya Ghosh addressed to Ms. Joya Chakraborty, Asst. Professor, Department of
MCJ.
2 . It is also the case of the petitioner that the said Daisy Kalita again filed another
complaint dated 27.5.2013 with the Chairperson, Sexual Harassment Cell of the

30-07-2018 (Page 1 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

respondent-University against him, and the same was forwarded to the Complaints
Committee on 27.5.2013 by three faculty members and three students of the
Department of MCJ along with the signatures of 31 students of the Department
regarding the alleged incident. On the basis of such complaints, the Complaint
Committee on Sexual Harassment ("the Committee" for short) of the respondent-
University held a meeting on 28.5.2013 in which the complainant, four student
representatives, the petitioner and two faculty members of the Department of MCJ in
a highly biased, unfair and questionable proceedings recommended his termination
from service with immediate effect as per University Service Rules Guidelines. On the
recommendation of the Committee, he was placed under suspension with effect from
1.6.2013 vide the office order dated 31.5.2013 issued by the respondent-University.
Following the said recommendation, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against
him by issuing the show cause dated 18.6.2013 asking him to respond to that He
promptly submitted his reply by giving proper explanation to the show cause on
4.7.2013, but the respondent-University was apparently not satisfied whereupon a
departmental enquiry was launched against him by appointing an Inquiry Officer. To
avoid unwarranted humiliation and the ordeal of going through lengthy enquiry, he
put in his resignation paper, which was, however, rejected by the Board of
Management, which proceeded to pursue the inquiry against him.
3 . The inquiry officer thereafter proceeded with the inquiry on 12.8.2013 in which
the petitioner participated. The Department examined the witnesses, who are also the
complainants but did not examine him at all. According to the petitioner, he
demolished the case against him in the cross-examination of these witnesses.
However, the inquiry officer, without any reason, served him with another notice
dated 19.8.2013 to appear before him for another round of inquiry to be held on
23.8.2013 wherein few witnesses of the complainant were to be examined though
their names were not among the list of witnesses in the charge sheet. He, therefore,
vide his letter dated 20.8.2013 raised his objection and expressed his apprehension
against the kind of proceedings being conducted. The petitioner participated in the
inquiry on 23.8.2013 and cross-examined the new witnesses. He also exhibited
additional documentary evidences. He also asked the inquiry officer to supply him
copies of the depositions of the witnesses after the recording of each and every
witnesses, but the respondent No. 3 (inquiry officer) refused to do so. He, therefore,
made written request on three occasions, namely, on 26.8.2013, 27.9.2013 and
9.10.2013 to the respondent No. 3 and the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent-
University to supply him copies of those depositions to enable him to compare the
same and prepare his defence. He was, however, furnished with the certified copies
of the written statements of the witnesses without the cross-examination portion,
which were withheld. The reason for withholding the cross-examination portions,
according to the petitioner, is not far to seek, namely, the respondent No. 3 wiped
out the major and vital portions of the cross-examinations done by him. This was a
device adopted by the respondent-University to deny the petitioner the Opportunity to
compare the cross-examinations with the ones recorded by him. The objection raised
by him in this behalf vide his notice dated 21.10.2013 and his request for fresh
inquiry were simply rejected by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that there is no
provision in law for doing the same vide his letter dated 31.10.2013. The petitioner
thereafter approached this Court in WP(C) No. 6513/13, but the respondent-
University without waiting for the decision of this court, expedited the whole process
of accepting the inquiry report and terminated the service of the petitioner vide the
order dated 8.11.2013. The petitioner, therefore, contends that the inquiry resulting
in the termination of his service is vitiated by procedural impropriety, partiality and
illegality and seeks the intervention of this Court.

30-07-2018 (Page 2 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

4. The writ petition is contested by the respondent-University by filing their affidavit-
in-opposition through the Registrar. It is the contention of the answering respondent
that the petitioner is bound by the agreement, the statutes, ordinances, regulations
and the rules in force in the respondent-University that his service can be terminated
if he is guilty of misconduct. The respondents admit to the fact that several
complaints were lodged against the petitioner by different students as stated by him
in the writ petition. According to the answering respondent, subsequent to the
suspension of the petitioner on 31.5.2013, a show cause was issued upon him on
18.6.2013 along with the list of documents to be relied upon against him. In the
show cause, it was alleged that he had made some sexually coloured remarks and
engaged in un-welcome verbal conduct of sexual nature with a student of 4th
semester of the Department of MCJ and that continuously for sometime, he has been
making sexually implicit remarks in the classroom as well as sexually coloured
remarks, etc. to other girl students of the Department, which amounted to
misconduct under the service rules of the respondent-University. In the show cause,
he was given an opportunity to inspect the documents relied upon by the University
within seven days. Thereafter, the answering respondent received an e-mail dated
19.6.2013 from the petitioner requesting him to allow him to inspect the documents
having relevance to the charges, and the same was allowed by him during office
hours between 26.6.2013 and 28.6.2013: he was also provided with copies of the
documents to be relied upon by the Department.
5 . As his explanation was found to be not satisfactory, the inquiry was proceeded
with against him by appointing the respondent No. 3 as the inquiry officer and the
Assistant Registrar (Estt.) of the respondent-university as the presenting officer for
the inquiry. His resignation was received but was not accepted considering the
seriousness of the charges levelled against him, more so, when the Committee found
the allegations levelled against him to be genuine and recommended termination of
his service. It is asserted by the answering respondent that the inquiry was
conducted against the petitioner by the inquiry officer freely and fairly and in
accordance with law by giving him adequate opportunity to defend himself. On
completion of the inquiry, the inquiry officer submitted his report on 11.9.2013 and
found that the charge against him was proved. He was duly furnished with the inquiry
report and was also asked to submit his representation against the inquiry report.
However, even before the inquiry came to an end, the petitioner finding himself to be
guilty raised objections against the inquiry report on frivolous grounds and
demanded fresh inquiry, which was naturally rejected vide the letter dated
31.10.2013. The inquiry report was thereafter placed before the Board of
Management, which after careful deliberation accepted the same. As authorised by
the Board of Management, the Vice-Chancellor by the impugned order removed him
from service with immediate effect He was also directed to leave the campus
immediately. It is submitted that no injustice was done to the petitioner which calls
for the interference of this Court.
6. The petitioner subsequently filed his reply affidavit to the counter-affidavit of the
respondent-University, which, in turn, filed its additional affidavit through the
Registrar responding to the allegations of the petitioner in his reply affidavit. In my
considered view, it is not really necessary to allude to those averments, which are
mostly repetition of their earlier pleadings and are argumentative.
7 . I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties. Having heard Mr. R.
Mazumdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N.C. Das, the learned
standing counsel for Tezpur University, the question to be determined is whether the

30-07-2018 (Page 3 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

departmental enquiry culminating in the dismissal of the petitioner from service is
vitiated by procedural impropriety? Unfolding his submissions, Mr. R. Mazumdar, the
learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned departmental enquiry
conducted against the petitioner suffers from serious procedural improprieties
inasmuch as he was denied of adequate opportunity of hearing to defend himself. It
is his contention that there is absolutely not an iota of evidence to substantiate the
charges made against him in the complaints, more so, when the charges are vague
and virtually left them for his imagination. The proceedings, right from the
beginning, according to the learned counsel, were tailor-made for the complainants
by the respondent-authorities who were bent upon inflicting maximum penalty and
are, therefore, biased. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, in particular,
pointed out the following infirmities in the proceedings of the departmental enquiry:
1. While issuing the memorandum of charges, the petitioner was never given
the list of witnesses and documents which were proposed to be relied on by
the Complaint Committee ("the Committee" for short) against him in the
enquiry.
2. The complaints dated 25.5.2013 lodged by the students are vague and do
not contain the date on which the incidents complained of took place.
3 . The complaint dated 27.5.2013 received by e-mail also does not contain
any date or time of the incidents and out of the three complainants, two of
them, namely, Reema Kundu and Ansua Chatterjee neither appeared before
the Committee nor before the second enquiry: in any case, this complaint is
an after-thought and an improvement of the original complaints.
4 . The enquiry conducted by the Committee on 28.5.2013 was in
contravention of the procedure laid down in the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964 ("the
Rules").
5. By cross-examining the petitioner by the Committee, in the absence of the
presenting officer, on 28.5.2013 vide para 7 of the counter-affidavit of the
respondent filed in October, 2014, the Committee has played the role of the
presenting officer thereby vitiating the enquiry.
6. Professor S.K. Datta, who was one of the members of the Committee, was
also the complainant in Case No. 4 and should not have taken part in the
enquiry inasmuch as he is an interested person: this alone is sufficient to
hold the enquiry illegal on the ground of bias.
7 . The depositions of the complainant and other witnesses before the
Committee were not recorded in verbatim, and the petitioner was never given
any opportunity to go through those depositions.
8 . The second enquiry was initiated by the order dated 18.6.2013 on the
basis of the same charges for which an enquiry was already conducted on
28.5.2013 where the petitioner had already divulged his entire defence, and
another enquiry on the same set of charges has seriously prejudiced the case
of the petitioner: this is merely an attempt to plug the loopholes found in the
first enquiry, which is unfair and illegal.
9 . The provision of Section 9(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at

30-07-2018 (Page 4 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

 Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 provides that a
complaint of sexual harassment should be filed within three months from the
date of the incident, but when the complaint lodged by the complainant did
not even mention the date of the incidents of complained of, the petitioner is
handicapped from taking the plea that the complaint is hopelessly time-
barred: this vital omission has caused grave prejudice to the petitioner and
exposed him to unwarranted and illegal proceedings.
1 0 . The objection raised by the petitioner on 20.8.2013 against the
examination of new witnesses in the enquiry without recording any reason
was ignored by the Committee.
1 1 . The petitioner was never given any opportunity to authenticate the
statement of the witnesses in violation of the established practice and
procedure adumbrated in clause (17) of Director General P & T Orders
contained at page 83 of Swamy's Compilation of CCS CCA Rules, 2010 Edn.
8 . Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-University
submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner after
scrupulously adhering to the procedure laid down by law, and no interference is
called for. He remind this Court of the settled law in the matter of domestic enquiry
that a writ court can interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority only if
there is material irregularities in the proceedings of the enquiry or if the findings are
based on no evidence. In the instant case, he contends, when there are some
evidences, which support the conclusion of the disciplinary authority, no infirmity of
the nature calling for the interference of this Court is established by the petitioner.
On completion of the enquiry, submits the learned senior counsel, a copy of the
enquiry report was supplied to him and he was asked to submit his representation
against the findings of the enquiry officer, but the petitioner asked for fresh enquiry
which was turned down by the disciplinary authority by his letter dated 31.10.2013:
there is also no provision under the statutes to enable the disciplinary authority to
direct fresh enquiry on the same set of charges against which a proceeding is already
pending. These are the sum and substance of the submissions of the learned senior
counsel for the respondent-University.
9. At the outset, it may be noticed that Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 came into force on 9.12.2013. An
elaborate mechanism has now been made to deal with and punish the growing
menace of sexual harassment against women at workplace. However, the instant case
cannot be governed by this Act as the incidents complained of took place prior to the
enforcement of the aforesaid Act. In that case, we shall have to fall back on the
guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan,
MANU/SC/0786/1997 : (1997) 6 SCC 241. In compliance with the aforesaid
guidelines, the Central Government has amended the provisions of Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 by inserting Rule 3-C therein, which reads:
"3-C. Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of working women.-
(1) No government servant shall indulge in any act of sexual
harassment of any women at her work place.
(2) Every government servant who is in charge of a work place shall
take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment to any woman
at such work place.

30-07-2018 (Page 5 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

 Explanation. - For the purpose of this rule, "sexual harassment" includes
such an unwelcome sexually determined behaviour, whether directly or
otherwise, as-
(a) physical contacts and advances;
(b) demand or request of sexual favour;
(c) sexually coloured remarks;
(d) showing any pornography; or
(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a
sexual nature."
10. Again taking cue from the judgment of the Apex Court in Medha Kotwal Lele Vs.
Union of India, MANU/SC/0898/2012 : (2013) 1 SCC 311,the Central Government
made corresponding amendment to Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 by incorporating a proviso thereto,
which is as follows:
"Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the
meaning of Rule 3-C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the
Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or Department or Office
for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed to be the Inquiring
Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of these
rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate proceeding has
not been prescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry
into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in
accordance with the provisions laid down in these rules."
11. There is no dispute at the bar that the provisions of the Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 ("Conduct Rules" for short) and the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ("CCA Rules") in so far as sexual
harassment of women at work place is concerned, at least, by virtue of the
guidelines/directions issued by the Apex Court in Vishaka case (supra) and Medha
Kotwal Lele case (supra). Before proceeding further, it can now be safely concluded
that there was no statutory limitation of period for filing a complaint of sexual
harassment against the petitioner: the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner in his behalf fails. However, his contention that the complaint is vague and
does not even mention the date and time of the incidents complained of deserves
deeper consideration. To appreciate this contention, I may refer to the English
translation of the first complaint dated 25.5.201-3 (Annexure-6), which reads thus:
"To
The Sexual Harassment Cell,
Tezpur University.
Dated 25th May, 2013.
Sub: Complaint against harassment.
Respected Ma'am,

30-07-2018 (Page 6 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

 This is to inform you that I am a student Mass Communication and
journalism, 4th Semester. I would like to make a complaint against the HOD,
Dr. C.S.H.N. Murthy, for his implicit proposal towards me for the sake of
grade and the completion of my dissertation, which seemed to be sexual in
nature.
I, hereby, request you to strictly probe into the matter and take necessary
action immediately.
Yours faithfully,
(Daisy Kalita)
MCM 11026
(List of people in support on the complaint is hereby enclosed)
Not mentioned *
12. The second complaint was filed by some students of 4th semester purportedly
25.5.2013 [Annexure-7(1)], the relevant portions whereof are reproduced below:
"To
The Sexual Harassment Cell,
Tezpur University,
Napaam, Tezpur.
Sub: Complaint against the sexual harassment of a certain faculty.
Respected Cell,
With regret we have to inform you that there have been continuous cases of
sexual harassment of many girls students of our batch, the cases being this
is not an isolated incident that has happened out of the blue. Rather it is the
tip of the iceberg. The latest being the event of one girl being tried to be
coerced in illicit activities with the HOD in the guise of clearing her
dissertation and asked her to meet the HOD. The HOD in turn asked to
indulge her in that. Even were lots of lascivious comments made in the
classroom and profanities that were uttered in the classroom. There has been
a litany of misdemeanours that were conducted by certain individual. The
order of the different comments and the activities of the person has been
transcribed and attached with this letter in support of the complaint.
Thus we would lie to lodge a formal complaint against the individual faculty
Prof. CSHN Murthy, HOD who is the source of this all the misdemeanours.
For students of 4th Semesters
1 3 . On going through the first and second complaint, interestingly, not even a
whisper of statement is made on the date and time of the incidents complained.
However, on the basis of such vague complaints, the Complaints Committee on
Sexual Harassment of the University entertained the case. Interestingly, another
complaint, which is more elaborate and in greater detail was filed by the said Daisy
Kalita on 27.5.2013. For the first time, the date of incident was mentioned as
24.5.2013, which did not find a place in her earlier complaint. In my opinion, the
said detailed complaint is an after-thought and an improvement on the earlier
complaint which did not, as already noticed, contain any material particulars and,

30-07-2018 (Page 7 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

therefore, should be taken with a pinch of salt. This appears to be a device to plug a
loophole in the case of the complainant, who was soon joined by other complainants.
The petitioner was left to imagine by himself the charges to be met by him.
Nevertheless, the Committee proceeded with the enquiry on 28.5.2013 without even
framing the articles of charges, purportedly examined the complainant, two witnesses
and the petitioner and proceeded to recommend the termination of the service of the
petitioner on the same day. Never was a departmental enquiry held so fast and
completed so soon. The Complaints Committee apparently functioned like a Kangaroo
Court or what they called lynching in the wild west to punish the petitioner. In my
opinion, the Complaints Committee have sacrificed all elements of fairness in their
proceedings against the petitioner. This reminds me of the observations of the Apex
Court in Surath Chandra Chakraborty Vs. State of W.B., MANU/SC/0493/1970 :
(1970) 3 SCC 548, which is quoted with approval by the Apex Court in Anil Gilurkar
Vs. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, MANU/SC/1083/2011 : (2011) 14 SCC
379, the relevant portion whereof are in the following terms:
"5......The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced
to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated
to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which
each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be
taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule
embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or
adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly
and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred
against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own
imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the
contemplation of the authorities to be established against him. By way of
illustration one of the grievances of the appellant contained in his letter,
dated March 24, 1950, to the Enquiry Officer may be mentioned. This is what
he said though the language employed is partly obscure and unhappy:
"Regarding the first charge, I beg to submit that the allegation is
vague. In the charge it has not been specifically stated as to where,
when and before whom I circulated false rumours, regarding
retrenchment policy of the Government and thereby spread
insubordination. In fact if one goes through the statements of PWs
made to D.F.S. as submitted before my suspicion, it will appear that
no specific case could have made with all material particular as to
date, time and person. Having been able to take deposition and to
conduct enquiry keeping me in dark and finally put me out of office,
Sri S. Bose was able to win over the witnesses and was able to
shape his case to suit his purpose."
6. Now in the present case each charge was so bare that it was not capable
of being intelligently understood and was not sufficiently definite to furnish
materials to the appellant to defend himself. It is precisely for this reason
that Fundamental Rule 55 provides, as stated before, that the charge should
be accompanied by a statement of allegations. The whole object of furnishing
the statement of allegations is to give all the necessary particulars and
details which would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable
opportunity to put up defence. The appellant repeatedly and at every stage
brought it to the notice of the authorities concerned that he had not been
supplied the statement of allegations and that the charges were extremely

30-07-2018 (Page 8 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

 vague and indefinite. In spite of all this no one cared to inform him of the
facts, circumstances and particulars relevant to the charges. Even if the
Enquiry Officer had made a report against him the appellant could have been
given a further opportunity at the stage of the second show-cause notice to
adduce any further evidence if he so desired after he had been given the
necessary particulars and material in the form of a statement of allegations
which had never been supplied to him before. This could undoubtedly be
done in view of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution as they
existed at the material time. The entire proceedings show a complete
disregard of Fundamental Rule 55 insofar as it lays down in almost
mandatory terms that the charges must be accompanied by a statement of
allegations. We have no manner of doubt that the appellant was denied a
proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself by reason of the
charges being altogether vague and indefinite and the statement of
allegations containing the material facts and particulars not having been
supplied to him. In this situation, for the above reason alone, the Trial Judge
was fully justified in decreeing the suit."
14. In my opinion, by proceeding against the petitioner on the basis of such vague
complaints, the petitioner has been denied of reasonable opportunity of hearing. This
then takes me to the manner in which the enquiry was conducted by the Complaint
Committee on 28.5.2013 as evident from Annexure-9 to the writ petition. In the
enquiry proceeding held by the Complaint Committee, the evidence was, to say the
least, taken in a crude way. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner to
cross-examine the witnesses examined against him. Yet, the Complaint Committee
made the following observations against the petitioner:
1. Ms. Daisy Kalita's case and her appeal for justice was genuine. During the
4 hour interrogation the facts that came before the Committee the 'aggrieved'
was genuinely shattered and shocked by the behaviour of the HOD.
2 . The complaint committee observed that student are not safe with an
individual like Prof Murthy who is obsessed with 'sex'. From interaction with
the 'aggrieved' and the content of the mail sent by the PGDMMC students,
also aggrieved, and interaction with the student representatives it was
evident that on a regular basis the 'respondent' Prof. Murthy has made sexual
innuendos' and 'sexual advances' and 'physical contact' with the girl students
and research scholars.
3. His manipulative nature is evident in the manner in which he intimidates
and confuses all his students. This is evident how he makes the students give
their suggestions for a 'good working' environment of the department. Then
he sends his suggestions to the university authority requesting to constitute
an all female faculty 'Inquiry Committee' to investigate the problems the
students are facing with some of the department faculties. At the same time
he instructs the students not to say anything adverse to the 'Inquiry
Committee' as the prestige of the department is at stake. He also spreads
rumour that that some students have made allegations of sexual harassment
against some teachers of the department. So when the 'Inquiry Committee'
visits the department on 13.05.2013 the students are wary and confused and
deny any such allegation was made and there is no problem in the
department. From this it is evident that he not only manipulated the
department students but also the university authority and made the 'inquiry'

30-07-2018 (Page 9 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

 as farce.
4. Prof Murthy is in the habit of making/discussing matters in the classroom
which are unbecoming of a teacher and detrimental to a healthy academic
environment by telling fictitious stories of other faculties/person's private
life. This reflected his perverted bent of mind.
5. Prof Murthy proves to be a habitual 'liar' as is evident from deciphering of
the coded text message EGFCXXs as 'Easy fucks' which the students said was
not true. Secondly, his vile allegations against his colleagues within and
outside the department. When asked for evidence he could not provide any
concrete proof to put before the committee.
6. In general he has no respect for women, particularly those of North East
India as is evident from Ms. Daisy's grievance letter as well as from his
conduct during the inquiry.
7 . His past record indicates that he is an individual not fit to be in an
academic institution. There is a case against him. In 1995 he was dismissed
from his job because of his abusive behaviour towards young children,
students and women.
15. It is on the basis of the foregoing observations that the Complaint Committee
had recommended the termination of the service of the petitioner. However, on
reading and re-reading the entire proceedings recorded by Complaint Committee at
Annexure-9 to the writ petition, it is obvious that the enquiry was conducted and
concluded on a single day i.e. on 28.5.2013. The complainant was perfunctorily
examined by the Complaint Committee, who appeared to ask leading questions, that
too, not in narrative form. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner cross-
examined, or was given any opportunity to cross-examine, the witnesses. No charge-
sheet or list of witnesses or documents was furnished to the petitioner by the
respondent authorities. Moreover, there is absolutely no legal evidence to support the
aforesaid observations of the Complaint Committee, yet their recommendation was to
terminate the service of the petitioner. As already noticed, the Central Government
has now amended Rule 14(2) of the CCA Rules by inserting a proviso thereto which
says that the Complaint Committee on Sexual Harassment constituted in each Ministry
or Department or Office should be deemed to the Inquiry Authority for inquiring into
such complaints, and the Complaint Committee should hold the inquiry as far as
practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in the CCA Rules. What
exactly is status of the report of the Complaint Committee on Sexual Harassment is
explained by the Apex Court in Medha Kotwal Lele (supra) in the following manner;
"44.1. The States and Union Territories which have not yet carried out
adequate and appropriate amendments in their respective Civil Services
Conduct Rules (by whatever name these Rules are called) shall do so within
two months from today by providing that the report of the Complaints
Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report in a disciplinary action
under such Civil Services Conduct Rules. In other words, the disciplinary
authority shall treat the report/findings, etc. of the Complaints Committee as
the findings in a disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent employee and
shall act on such report accordingly. The findings and the report of the
Complaints Committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary
investigation or inquiry leading to a disciplinary action but shall be treated as

30-07-2018 (Page 10 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

 a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent."
1 6 . The respondent authority should have treated the report of the Complaint
Committee and then examined as to whether the findings recorded therein constitute
sufficient evidence to hold him guilty of the charge. If the answer is in the
affirmative, the respondent authority would hold him guilty of the charges and award
appropriate punishment. Conversely, if the findings are not based on evidence, they
would exonerate the petitioner from all the charges. However, without doing anything
of that nature, they apparently treated the report of the Complaint Committee as a
mere preliminary investigation or enquiry and proceeded to place the petitioner under
suspension on the ground that a disciplinary proceeding was contemplated against
him vide the Office Order dated 31.5.2013 and subsequently issued the charge memo
against him requiring him to submit his written statement of defence against the
allegations made against him vide the show cause dated 18.6.2013. No cogent
reason was given for not treating the report of the Complaint Committee as the
enquiry report against the petitioner. However, without rhyme or reason, the report
of the Complaint Committee was apparently brushed aside by the respondent
authority, who proceeded to issue the latest show cause, which amounts to holding a
second enquiry after the petitioner had already disclosed his defence.
1 7 . Moreover, the report of the Complaint Committee dated 28.5.2013 did not
disclose any evidence to support their findings that the allegations made against the
petitioner were proved: there was thus no basis for recommending the termination of
the service of the petitioner. Perhaps, the respondent authority had to take resort to
holding another enquiry as there was no legal evidence to support the findings of
guilt recorded by the Committee against the petitioner and they did not at the same
time want to exonerate him of the charges against him. The legality of a second
enquiry after abandoning the first enquiry on the same set of charges came up for
consideration before the Apex Court in Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. Union of India,
MANU/SC/0847/2014 : (2014) 10 SCC 589, and the Apex Court observed:
"24. Be that as it may, the question is whether the disciplinary authority
could have resorted to such a practice of abandoning the enquiry already
undertaken and resort to appointment of a fresh enquiring authority
(multimember)? The issue is not really whether the enquiring authority
should be a single member or a multi-member body, but whether a second
inquiry such as the one under challenge is permissible. A Constitution Bench
of this Court in K.R. Deb v. CCE, examined the question in the context of
Rule 15(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1957. It was a case where an enquiry was ordered against a Sub-
Inspector, Central Excise (the appellant before this Court). The enquiry
officer held that the charge was not proved. Thereafter the disciplinary
authority appointed another enquiry officer "to conduct a supplementary
open inquiry". Such supplementary inquiry was conducted and a report that
there was "no conclusive proof" to "establish the charge" was made. Not
satisfied, the disciplinary authority thought it fit that "another enquiry officer
should be appointed to inquire afresh into the charge".
25. The Court in K.R. Deb held that: (SCC p. 105, paras 12-13)
"12. It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for
one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has
been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into

30-07-2018 (Page 11 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

 the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the
time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the
disciplinary authority may ask the enquiry officer to record further
evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting
aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the
inquiring officer or officers does not appeal to the disciplinary
authority. The disciplinary authority has enough powers to
reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under
Rule 9.
13. In our view the Rules do not contemplate an action such as was
taken by the Collector on 13.2.1962. It seems to us that the
Collector, instead of taking responsibility himself, was determined to
get some officer to report against the appellant. The procedure
adopted was not only not warranted by the Rules but was harassing
to the appellant."
(emphasis supplied)
and allowed the appeal of K.R. Deb.
26. It can be seen from the above that the normal rule is that there can be
only one enquiry. This Court has also recognised the possibility of a further
enquiry in certain circumstances enumerated therein. The decision however
makes it clear that the fact that the report submitted by the enquiring
authority is not acceptable to the disciplinary authority, is not a ground for
completely setting aside the enquiry report and ordering a second enquiry."
18. In the instant case, the position obtaining here is the reverse of what happened
in the case of K.R. Deb case (supra) inasmuch as the findings in the instant case are
against the petitioner. But then, the principle remains the same. Even if some serious
defect has crept in the course of inquiry or some important witnesses were not
available at the time of inquiry or not examined at all for other reason, all that the
respondent-University could do was to ask the Complaint Committee to record further
evidence. In the absence of any provision for holding de novo inquiry, which is the
case under the CCA Rules, the respondent-University could not have abandoned the
report of the Complaint Committee, which was to be treated as the inquiry report by
virtue of the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCA Rules. Moreover, no reason was
assigned by the respondent authority to hold fresh inquiry when the Complaint
Committee had already concluded the inquiry. Consequently, the subsequent inquiry
conducted against the petitioner in terms of the show cause dated 18.6.2013 cannot
be sustained in law.
19. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the second departmental
inquiry conducted against the petitioner in terms of the show cause dated 18.6.2013
is permissible also, there are procedural improprieties in this inquiry for four
reasons, namely, (1) the inquiry was conducted on the basis of the same vague and
after-thought complaints, which were full of embellishment; (2) the petitioner was
never given an opportunity to authenticate the statements of the witnesses examined
by the enquiry committee: this in contravention of the established practice and
procedure contained in D.G., P & T, Letter No. 6/66/60-Disc, dated 14th April, 1961
and Para 92, P & T Manual Vol. III, and (3) subjecting the petitioner to the second
departmental enquiry on the same set of facts and evidence has caused serious
prejudice to the petitioner inasmuch as he had already disclosed his defence in the

30-07-2018 (Page 12 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala

first enquiry; (4) the enquiry officer had taken into account the complaints filed by
the students of MCJ fourth Semester dated 25.5.2013 and dated 27.5.2013 and the e-
mail dated 27.5.2013 of PG diploma students in mobile and multimedia. which did
not even specify the date and time of the incidents of sexual harassment in the
classroom; the complaints apparently related to the academic years 2011-2012,
which means the complaints are one year old: old cases should not have been
entertained even if there is no period of limitation. In my judgment, both the
departmental enquiries held against the petitioner and the order of removal
emanating therefrom suffer from the vice of illegality, procedural impropriety and
arbitrariness, and cannot be sustained in law.
20. The result of the foregoing discussion is that this writ petition succeeds. The
impugned Office Order (Memo No. F 07-18/(E)/3525/A dated 8.11.2013 removing
the petitioner from service and the connected departmental enquiries are hereby
quashed. Consequently, the respondent-University shall reinstate the petitioner to his
post within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. As the
removal of the petitioner from service and the departmental enquiries are found to be
wholly illegal, the respondent-University is further directed to pay him all the back
wages with effect from the date he was removed from service within a period of three
months from today, failing which he shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12
percent per annum from the date of this judgment. Before parting, I place on record
my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered to the Court by Mr. R.
Mazumdar, the learned amicus curiae, for which the High Court Legal Services
Authority will pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) to him.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

30-07-2018 (Page 13 of 13) www.manupatra.com Raian karanjawala