Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The brief facts are as follows: The petitioner was an Associate Professor in the Mangalore University. He was employed with the University from the year 1995. He joined the University as a Lecturer and he was promoted as a Senior Lecturer in 1999 and as a Reader in 2004 and as on the date of the petition, he was an Associate Professor. The petitioner claims that he had a record of service which was without any blemish. The petitioner claims academic excellence and it is stated that on a project proposal, entirely conceived by him, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research had awarded the project to the University, as a result of which, a sum of Rs.2.10 Crore was placed at the disposal of the University to carry out the research activities as proposed under the project and the petitioner claims that he has spear-headed the implementation of the same. The petitioner also lays claim to yet another project under the aegis of the Ministry of Earth Sciences. The petitioner also claims to have published several academic papers. It is the petitioner’s claim that the genesis of the slur campaign that was initiated involved two Junior Research Fellows, who were in fact selected at the instance of the petitioner namely, one Ms. Puneetha Panday from Haryana and one Ms. Divya Shetty from Mangalore, who were deputed to work under the project involving research into fresh water bivalves. According to the petitioner, the duty assign to the said scholars was to collect the seashore organisms, water samples, sediment samples from the field and process the same in the Laboratory. This involved much travel and odd hours of work. The said Research Fellows, according to the petitioner, considered this as a mental harassment and disliked the petitioner on account of his insistence on adherence to duty. It is the petitioner’s case that the scholars were unable to bear the strict discipline and devotion required in the said research activities and therefore, had voluntarily submitted their resignation on 11.6.2010, without assigning any reason. However, there were several persons within the University who were inimically disposed towards the petitioner and pounced on the opportunity of utilizing the untimely resignation of the aforesaid two persons to instigate them to file a false and baseless complaint against the petitioner. However, there were several persons within the University who were inimically disposed towards the petitioner and pounced on the opportunity of utilizing the untimely resignation of the aforesaid two persons to instigate them to file a false and baseless complaint against the petitioner. Accordingly, it is the petitioner’s case that on 15.6.2010, the two Research Fellows and complained to the Vice-Chancellor alleging mental harassment. The text of the letter of complaint is as follows:- Date:15.06.2010 “To: The Vice Chancellor, MangaloreUniversity, Mangalagangothri, Mangalore-574 199. Sir, Subject: Mental Harassment under MoES biodiversity project (MoES/11/MRDF/1/62/P/08). We are writing this letter to inform you about the harassment we are being subjected to, by our principal investigator, Dr. S. Thippeswamy of the Department of Biosciences. We joined under the MoES Biodiversity project as JRF in the Department in July 2009 and worked for eleven months. On 8th June, 2010 he had called me (Puneeta Pandey) and final year Ph.D research scholar (Malathi Shettigar), to his chamber after 5.30 pm for the computer related work. We were working in his chamber on the computer. While I was typing on computer he was misbehaving with Malathi at my back with her full cooperation. When I turned my back and saw everything they behaved as if nothing has happened. Malathi did not protest at all. Next day Malathi came and told everyone that Sir had misbehaved with her the previous evening. After this incident he compelled me and Divya, my colleague to resign from the post of JRF. On various occasions in the past, Dr. S. Thippeswamy has been trying to get an opportunity to find us alone in his chamber or take us alone for the field trips or calling alone on Sundays and holidays. He had given us warnings for going for the field trips together, telling that if we ask for going field together we should resign. He had made us stay in the laboratory till 10.30 pm even if we requested him that we will do the remaining work next day. He had forced us many times to work for the NAIP project when they bring samples from the field. He had also forced us to go for the sampling for NAIP project for one week to far places like Goa and Kerala giving least importance to our project related work. He had forced us many times to work for the NAIP project when they bring samples from the field. He had also forced us to go for the sampling for NAIP project for one week to far places like Goa and Kerala giving least importance to our project related work. He had also forced us to do office related work NAIP project which consumed too much time from our working hours because of which we could not do our work on time. Finally, we were compelled to resign from the post of JRF after working so hard for eleven months. Without any fault from our side we are suffering today. We demand to change the Principal Investigator of this project and give responsibility to a responsible person who can handle the project without harassing us. We find the project best for our research and worked as hard while collecting samples from all over the Karnataka Coast. Kindly take strict action against Dr. S. Thippeswamy, PI, MoES Biodiversity Project “Inventorying and monitoring of intertidal biodiversity from Karnataka Coast” (MoES/11/MRDF/1/62/P/08) Kindly do the needful.” This was magnified beyond all proportion and was made to order, for the designs of the then Vice Chancellor, who was keenly interested to ensure that the project which was being managed by the petitioner, to be handed over to one of his close relatives who was, as on the date of the petitioner, a Professor and Chairman of the Department of Bio-Sciences in the same University. This generated a slur campaign, whereby persons who were jealous of the petitioner’s achievements and were keen on ensuring his downfall, had offered opinions as regards the petitioner’s conduct, without any basis. Pursuant to which, the petitioner was placed under suspension as on 30.7.2010. This was challenged by the petitioners by way of a writ petition in WP 25617/2010 and the order of suspension was stayed. The respondent had then filed an application seeking to have the order of stay vacated. The application was rejected. The respondent thereafter filed an appeal against that order in WA 3585/2010. In order to give a quietus to the ordeal and to hasten the process, the counsel for the petitioner had made a statement before the court that the appeal be allowed and the inquiry be expedited. Accordingly, the appeal stood disposed of and time was granted to the respondent to complete the inquiry expeditiously. In order to give a quietus to the ordeal and to hasten the process, the counsel for the petitioner had made a statement before the court that the appeal be allowed and the inquiry be expedited. Accordingly, the appeal stood disposed of and time was granted to the respondent to complete the inquiry expeditiously. However, the same was delayed and the respondent had sought for extension of time. It is significant that even during the inquiry, the petitioner was directed to handover the projects under his stewardship to Professor M. Rajashekar and Dr. M. Krishnamurthy, thereby clearly indicting the hidden designs of the respondents in initiating proceedings against the petitioner. It is contended that there were seven charges against the petitioner which were as follows:- (The charges which are in the Kannada language have been translated for the purpose of this Order to English). “The following are the charges against Dr. S. Thippeswamy, Associate Professor, Department of Biosciences, Mangalore University. Charge No.1: Behaved indecently and caused mental and sexual harassment to Miss. Puneetha Pandey and Miss. Divya Shetty, Research Students (Scholars) and Smt. Dr. Taravathi N.C., Reader, Department of Biosciences, who are engaged in MoES Biodiversity Research Project Work. Charge No.2: Miss. Malathi. S has been working as UGC Research Student (Scholar) under the guidance of Dr. S. Thippeswamy, Associate Professor. On the evening of 08.06.2010, he had behaved indecently with her and an oral complaint has been given to the President of the Department in this regard that the Guide was causing harassment. Charge No.3: You have forcibly made Miss. Puneetha Pandey and Miss. Divya Shetty, who are appointed as Junior Research Assistants for the MoES Bio-Diversity Research Project, to work for NAIP Project works also under your subordination and caused inconvenience to the M.o.ES Bio-Diversity Research Project Works. Charge No.4: You have forcibly obtained the resignations of Miss. Puneetha Pandey and Miss. Divya Shetty, who are working in MoES Bio-Diversity Research Project, and accepted the same in misuse of your authority as the Chief of Research faculty. You have obtained the resignations of those Research students by coercion. Charge No.4: You have forcibly obtained the resignations of Miss. Puneetha Pandey and Miss. Divya Shetty, who are working in MoES Bio-Diversity Research Project, and accepted the same in misuse of your authority as the Chief of Research faculty. You have obtained the resignations of those Research students by coercion. They were selected by the Selection Committee, nominated by the University, as per the Rules of Recruitment and the Guidelines of the MoES Bio-Diversity Research Project, and hence the same could not have been accepted without obtaining the consent of the University and accepted the same without approval of the University. Charge No.5: As the Associate Professor of Biosciences Department, have not performed the duties and functions entrusted by the President of the Department from time to time, thereby displaying insubordination and dereliction of duty. Charge No.6: Insofar as the progress of the NAIP Project is concerned, since utilization certificate and progress certificate have not been submitted to the respective Department at the appropriate time, the work of the project has been held up and written complaints have been received from the respective Departments regarding the poor progress of the said project. Hence, the image of the University has been jeopardized by your dereliction of duty. Charge No.7: Under the Office Order dated 30.09.2010, dismissing you from services, even though orders were issued to you to handover the responsibilities of MoES and NAIP Projects to the President of the Department of Biosciences and to Professor Dr. M. Krishna Murthy, you have flouted the said order and even after the suspension, you have kept the responsibilities of the Project with you, thereby refusing to follow orders of the University-you are hence guilty of insubordination. You have questioned the authority of the University and capability of Dr. M. Krishna Murthy and Dr. M. Rajashekar, in this regard. By the above conduct the said person has violated Sub-rule 3(i)(ii)(iii) of 9 of Mangalore University Service (Conduct) Rules”. It is contended that the petitioner had furnished a detailed reply to the above charges. However, the inquiry committee without appreciating the same, nor the evidence which was tendered at the inquiry, proceeded to record adverse findings against the petitioner. This was summarily accepted by the Syndicate of the University and a penalty of compulsory retirement from service was proposed and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. However, the inquiry committee without appreciating the same, nor the evidence which was tendered at the inquiry, proceeded to record adverse findings against the petitioner. This was summarily accepted by the Syndicate of the University and a penalty of compulsory retirement from service was proposed and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted his reply to demonstrate the baseless allegations and the reasons assigned in finding a case against the petitioner being wholly untenable. However, the same was rejected and the punishment as proposed was implemented. It is in that background that the present petition is filed. 3. Shri Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is a 50 year old Associate Professor, who is happily married and has achieved academic excellence in his field of work. In all these years, there has not been a single complaint of mis-behaviour, which has been placed on record. It is only pursuant to Annexure-F, that material has been sought to be created to tarnish and demolish the petitioner’s image and his career. This has been successfully carried out. In this regard, the learned Senior Advocate takes this court through the sequence of events, the material allegations against the petitioner and the evidence that was sought to be placed at the inquiry and the findings, which, according to the learned Senior Advocate, would not stand the test of law or as being in compliance with principles of natural justice, to bring home serious charges. It is emphasized though there are several charges, most are asserted to bolster the main allegation of what is characterized as sexual harassment of the complainants, even though there was no specific instance of indecent behaviour or physical contact whatsoever, in the complaints nor was there any justification of accepting the evidence of self-acclaimed victims, who had been produced as witnesses and who sought to make allegations of alleged mis-behaviour in the past, though there were no further steps taken either by the victim or the person to whom any complaint had been made in that regard at that point of time. It is also highlighted that of the two complainants, one of them was not present in person for her cross-examination, but, had tendered her evidence through Video-conferencing, while yet another had never participated in the proceedings nor did tender any evidence in support of her complaint. It is further pointed out that one other Research Scholar, who was unfairly accused of being intimate with the petitioner and which according to the complainants, was the reason that they suffered under a constant apprehension of the petitioner seeking to take advantage of their position, which in any event remained a figment of their imagination and did not translate into the petitioner actually making any sexual advances against the complainants, had tendered evidence at the inquiry and had supported the petitioner. In that, she had denied all allegations of any such misbehaviour with her by the petitioner or that there was any display of intimate relationship in the presence of the complainants, as between the petitioner and the said Malathi. In this regard, the learned Senior Advocate would take this court through the relevant portions of the evidence to demonstrate that there was neither any allegation by the complainant of actual indecent behaviour either in action or word, except the allegation that the petitioner was seen petting Ms. Malathi in their presence, which has been denied by the said Malathi at the inquiry. The learned Senior Advocate would contend that this would hardly make out a case of sexual harassment warranting the extreme punishment of compulsory retirement and more importantly, the serious damage that has been caused to the name and reputation of the petitioner and his family in the sordid affairs that have been woven around the petitioner’s career, which has resulted in gross injustice. Therefore, the learned Senior Advocate seeks interference of this court. 4. On the other hand, Shri P.S. Rajagopal, Senior Advocate appearing for the Counsel for the respondent would contend as follows:- That from a plain reading of the petition, it is clear that the petitioner seeks reappreciation of evidence and redetermination of findings of fact and substitution of concurrent findings of the charges having been established against the petitioner and hence would contend that it would be exceeding the scope of judicial review, in considering this petition. It is stated that the University had permitted the petitioner to issue appointment orders to two Junior Research Fellows, namely, Ms. Divya Shetty and Ms. Puneeta Pandey and who were duly appointed. They joined the project and were under the direct supervision of the petitioner who was the Principal Investigator. At the outset, it is stated that at no point of time, during their tenure in the University was there any adverse remark about their performance. Inexplicably, the two persons had simultaneously submitted their resignation and no reasons were assigned. The petitioner was required to refer the matter to the University and seek a decision of the competent authority on those letters of resignation. However, the petitioner by his letter dated 21.6.2010 informed the University that the two Junior Research Fellows had submitted their resignations and he had accepted the same and sought permission to appoint two other persons in their place. This, according to the learned Senior Advocate, was without authority of law. Incidentally, before the letter dated 21.6.2010 could reach the University, the Vice-Chancellor had received the complaint filed by the two Research Fellows dated 15.6.2010. The learned Senior Advocate while drawing attention to the content of the said complaint, would urge that though the complaint refers to mental harassment, there is no doubt that the complainants were politely understating the constant fear and anxiety of sexual harassment in the lurking presence of the petitioner. He would further submit that there is no enacted law as regards sexual harassment at the work place and therefore, the norms laid down by the apex Court in the case of Vishakaand others vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 4 SCC 241 , is the only guide and in the words of the Supreme Court, the broad definition of ‘sexual harassment’ would include the following:- “For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as: (a) physical contact and advance (b) a demand or request for sexual favours (c) Sexually-coloured remarks. (d) showing pornography (e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. (d) showing pornography (e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. Where any of these acts is committed in circumstances whereunder the victim of such conduct has a reasonable apprehension that in relation to the victim’s employment or work, whether she is drawing salary, or honorarium or voluntary, whether in government, public or private enterprise, such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem. It is discriminatory for instance when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment or work including recruiting or promotion or when it creates a hostile work environment. Adverse consequences might be visited if the victim does not consent to the conduct in question or raises any objection thereto.” The Supreme Court has also laid down the guidelines and norms to be observed in all work places for the preservation and enforcement of the right to gender equality of working women and it is laid down that the said directions would be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field. Further, the National Commission for Women, which is a body constituted under the National Commission for Women Act, 1990, had evolved a code of conduct for the workplace which is also brought to the attention of this court. Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra. (1999) 1 SCC 759 , has further explained and elaborated on what constitutes sexual harassment as laid down in Vishaka, in the following terms: “25. An analysis of the above definition shows that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones, whether directly or by implication, particularly when submission to or rejection of such a conduct by the female employee was capable of being used for effecting the employment of the female employee and unreasonably interfering with her work performance and had the effect of creating an intimidating or hostile working environment for her. 26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment at the place of work, results in violation of the fundamental right to gender equality and right to life and liberty-the two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India… 27. 26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment at the place of work, results in violation of the fundamental right to gender equality and right to life and liberty-the two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India… 27. In cases involving violation of human rights, the courts must forever remain alive to the international instruments and conventions and apply the same to a given case when there is no inconsistency between the international norms and the domestic law occupying the filed. In the instant case, the High Court appears to have totally ignored the intent and the content of the international conventions and norms while dealing with the case. 28. The observation made by the High Court to the effect that since the respondent did not ‘actually molest’ Miss X but only ‘tried to molest’ her and, therefore, his removal from service was not warranted, rebel against realism and lose their sanctity and credibility. In the instant case, the behaviour of the respondent did not cease to be outrageous for want of an actual assault or touch by the superior officer. In a case involving charge of sexual harassment or attempt to sexually molest, the courts are required to examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities or the dictionary meaning of the expression ‘molestation’. They must examine the entire material to determine the genuineness of the complaint. The statement of the victim must be appreciated in the background of the entire case. Where the evidence of the victim inspires confidence, as is the position in the instant case, the courts are obliged to rely on it. Such cases are required to be dealt with great sensitivity. Sympathy in such cases in favour of the superior officer is wholly misplaced and mercy has no relevance. The High Court overlooked the ground realities and ignored the fact that the conduct of the respondent against his junior female employee. Miss X, was wholly against moral sanctions, decency and was offensive to her modesty. Reduction of punishment in a case like this is bound to have a demoralizing effect on the women employees and is a retrograde step. There was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment imposed by the departmental authorities. Miss X, was wholly against moral sanctions, decency and was offensive to her modesty. Reduction of punishment in a case like this is bound to have a demoralizing effect on the women employees and is a retrograde step. There was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment imposed by the departmental authorities. The act of the respondent was unbecoming of good conduct and behaviour expected from a superior officer and undoubtedly amounted to sexual harassment of Miss. X and the punishment imposed by the appellant was thus commensurate with the gravity of his objectionable behaviour and did not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review.” With the above legal position in view, if the facts of the present case are addressed, it is clear that on receiving the complaint from the two Junior Research Fellows, the Vice-Chancellor had called a meeting of the teachers working in the department of Bio-Sciences to ascertain the facts. At the meeting, the Vice-Chancellor was satisfied that the matter required to be investigated. Therefore, he had requested the Chairman of the Department of Studies in Bio-Sciences to investigate and report. Thereafter, one Professor M. Krishnamurthy, Chairman of the Department of Studies in Bio-Sciences had made inquiries. One Ms. S. Malathi, a Research Scholar of whom the petitioner was the guide and who has been referred to by the two Junior Research Fellows, had been called upon to state her version of the circumstances which is disclosed in a letter dated 22.6.2010. One Dr. N.C. Taravathi, a teacher who had worked under the petitioner also furnished a letter. The Chairman of the Department submitted his report dated 22.6.2010, to the Registrar of the University enclosing the written complaint of Dr. Taravathi and the letter of Ms. Malathi, while indicating that though Ms. Malathi had orally agreed about the harassment meted out by her guide, she was reluctant to state so in writing and that on the basis of the materials gathered by him, the Chairman of the department recommended that an inquiry be conducted and action taken accordingly. Thereafter, the University by a memo dated 23.6.2010 called upon the petitioner to explain the reasons for the resignation of the two Junior Research Fellows. Thereafter, the University by a memo dated 23.6.2010 called upon the petitioner to explain the reasons for the resignation of the two Junior Research Fellows. The petitioner without indicating how he could have accepted the resignations of those two persons, merely stated that they had submitted their resignations of their own volition and that he had not compelled them and further indicated that one reason maybe that he had stated about their poor performance in an Annual Progress Report submitted to the Ministry of Earth Sciences. But however, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that on perusal of the Annual Progress Report, there was no mention of the two Junior Research Fellows nor was there any indication of their inadequate or unsatisfactory performance and the learned Senior Advocate would further submit that on verification, the report which was stated to have been prepared by the petitioner in May 2010 was actually dispatched only on 10.6.2010 and it was prima facie evident that he had accepted the resignations of the two scholars without reporting to the University. And that he had no power to accept the resignations. In that background, the Syndicate at its meeting on 8.7.2010, resolved that the disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner and that a show-cause notice in this regard be served on the petitioner. After the same was issued, the petitioner replied. The Syndicate, on perusal of the reply, concluded that there was prima facie evidence to hold an inquiry and accordingly, nominated a three member inquiry committee consisting of a Professor of the Department of Statistics, a lady Advocate and a lady Professor of the department of Business Administration and the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated 30.7.2010. This was challenged by the petitioner by way of a writ petition in WP 25617/2010 and the order of suspension was stayed. The respondent had then filed an application seeking to have the order of stay vacated. The application was rejected. The respondent thereafter filed an appeal against that order in WA 3585/2010. In the result, the order of suspension stood revived and then he was called upon to handover charge. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application in the writ appeal seeking dissolution of the interim order granted by the Division Bench. The application was rejected. The respondent thereafter filed an appeal against that order in WA 3585/2010. In the result, the order of suspension stood revived and then he was called upon to handover charge. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application in the writ appeal seeking dissolution of the interim order granted by the Division Bench. At this stage, the petitioner accepted that the suspension was valid and accordingly, the writ appeal stood allowed and the order of suspension was in operation. Even thereafter the petitioner refused to handover charge of the project. At the inquiry, after receiving the reply from the petitioner to the charges, the Committee conducted an elaborate inquiry spread over ten sittings and it was ultimately concluded on 30.12.2010. Ten witnesses including Dr. Taravathi and Ms. Puneeta Pandey were examined in support of the charges. The petitioner had examined four witnesses in his defence. Voluminous documentary evidence was produced in support of the charges and written arguments were filed on either side and the inquiry committee, on a close examination of the charges and the evidence, submitted a report dated 8.2.2011 and held that all the charges stood established. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate that the petitioner had filed a list of nine witnesses, five of whom were Research Scholars working under him and the remaining were the employees of the project. But at the inquiry, five of the witnesses listed by the petitioner were not produced by him. Two other persons listed by the petitioner as witnesses namely, Ms. Nannu Shafakaulla, Senior Research Fellow and Ms. Reema Oasan Lobo, a Senior Research Fellow had complained about the harassment they were suffering at the hands of the petitioner. They had filed a joint complaint in this regard which is annexed to the statement of objections. The learned Senior Advocate would also draw attention to the circumstances whereby the petitioner was said to have coerced the witnesses to appear on his behalf in this regard, Ms. Reema Lobo, in a mail sent to Ms. Puneeta Pandey, had narrated how the petitioner was coercing her and others. A copy of the mail has been exhibited at the inquiry as Exhibit M.73. It is alleged that the petitioner prevented Ms. Divya Shetty from appearing at the inquiry and further that he made it impossible for Ms. Reema Lobo, in a mail sent to Ms. Puneeta Pandey, had narrated how the petitioner was coercing her and others. A copy of the mail has been exhibited at the inquiry as Exhibit M.73. It is alleged that the petitioner prevented Ms. Divya Shetty from appearing at the inquiry and further that he made it impossible for Ms. Puneeta Pandey to come to the inquiry in person, which she has stated in her deposition namely, that before commencement of the inquiry and after the petitioner was suspended, the wife of the petitioner had contacted one of the relatives of Divya Shetty and threatened both Divya Shetty and Puneeta Pandey that they will face the consequences if they appeared at the inquiry as her brother was an Advocate and that they would prevent them from appearing. This according to the learned Senior Advocate was sufficient to put them in fear of appearing at the inquiry and therefore it was at the request of Puneeta Pandey that her evidence was recorded via Video-conferencing. It is stated that the report of the inquiry committee was placed before the Syndicate and the Syndicate, on a close consideration, accepted the findings of the inquiry only in respect of Charge No.5 and disagreed with the findings of the inquiry and unanimously held that the charges are otherwise proved and proposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with all terminal benefits and a notice was issued regarding the proposed penalty. The petitioner had reiterated his submissions in reply that the findings recorded were incorrect and that the inquiry was not properly conducted. However, there was no submission as regards the proposed penalty. The Syndicate, in turn, unanimously resolved to impose the punishment proposed, by a resolution dated 13.4.2011. Though an appeal is provided to the Chancellor under the Statutes of the University, the petitioner has preferred the present petition. The learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petitioner was a teacher in the University. The allegations against him pertained to sexual harassment of students and junior colleagues, in which event, there was not even a need to hold a regular inquiry when it was prima facie demonstrated that the petitioner was indeed indulged in such behaviour. The learned Senior Advocate would submit that the petitioner was a teacher in the University. The allegations against him pertained to sexual harassment of students and junior colleagues, in which event, there was not even a need to hold a regular inquiry when it was prima facie demonstrated that the petitioner was indeed indulged in such behaviour. The learned Senior Advocate would cite the case of AvinashNagra vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others, (1997) 2 SCC 534 , which was a case involving dismissal of a teacher from service on the charge of sexual harassment of girl students without providing an opportunity to cross-examine the girl students. Rejecting the contention of the teacher, about the denial of reasonable opportunity, it was held as follows:- “11. It is in the backdrop, therefore, that the Indian society has elevated the teacher as ‘Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha’ . As Brahma, the teacher creates knowledge, learning wisdom and also creates out of his students, men and women, equipped with ability and knowledge, discipline and intellectualism to enable them to face the challenges of their lives. As Vishnu, the teacher is preserver of learning. As Mahaeswara, he destroys ignorance. Obviously, therefore, the teacher was placed on the pedestal below the parents. The State has taken care of service conditions of the teacher and he owes dual fundamental duties to himself and to the society. As a member of the noble teaching profession and a citizen of Indian he should always be willing, self-disciplined, dedicated and integrity to remain ever a learner of knowledge, intelligently to articulate and communicate and imbibe in his students, as social duty, to impart education, to bring them up with discipline, inculcate to abjure violence and to develop scientific temper with a spirit of enquiry and reform constantly to rise to higher levels in any walk of life nurturing constitutional ideals enshrined in Article 51-A so as to make the students responsible citizens of the country. Thus the teacher either individually or collectively as a community of teachers, should regenerate this dedication with a bent of spiritualism in broader perspective of the constitutionalism with secular ideologies enshrined in the Constitution as an arm of the State to establish egalitarian social order under the rule of law. Thus the teacher either individually or collectively as a community of teachers, should regenerate this dedication with a bent of spiritualism in broader perspective of the constitutionalism with secular ideologies enshrined in the Constitution as an arm of the State to establish egalitarian social order under the rule of law. Therefore, when the society has given such a pedestal, the conduct, character, ability and disposition of a teacher should be to transform the student into a disciplined citizen, inquisitive to learn, intellectual to pursue in any walk of life with dedication, discipline and devotion with an enquiring mind but not with blind customary beliefs. The education that is imparted by the teacher determines the level of the student for the development, prosperity and welfare of the society. The quality, competence and character of the teacher are, therefore, most significant to mould the caliber, character and capacity of the students for successful working of democratic institutions and to sustain them in their later years of life as a responsible citizen in different responsibilities. Without a dedicated and disciplined teacher, even the best education system is bound to fail. It is, therefore, the duty of the teacher to take such care of the pupils as a careful parent would take of his children and the ordinary principle of vicarious liability would apply where negligence is that of a teacher. The age of the pupil and the nature of the activity in which he takes part are material factors determining the degree and supervision demanded by a teacher. 12. It is axiomatic that percentage of education among girls, even after independency, is fathom deep due to indifference on the part of all in rural India except some educated people. Education to the girl children is nation’s asset and foundation for fertile human resources and disciplined family management, apart from their equal participation in socio-economic and political democracy. Only of late, some middle-class people are sending the girl children to co-educational institutions under the care of proper management and to look after the welfare and safety of the girls. Therefore, greater responsibility is thrust on the management of the schools and colleges to protect the young children, in particular, the growing up girls, to bring them up in disciplined and dedicated pursuit of excellence. The teacher who has been kept in charge, bears more added higher responsibility and should be more exemplary. Therefore, greater responsibility is thrust on the management of the schools and colleges to protect the young children, in particular, the growing up girls, to bring them up in disciplined and dedicated pursuit of excellence. The teacher who has been kept in charge, bears more added higher responsibility and should be more exemplary. His/Her character and conduct should be more like Rishi and as loco parentis and such is the duty, responsibility and charge expected of a teacher. The question arises whether the conduct of the appellant is befitting with such higher responsibilities and as he by his conduct betrayed the trust and forfeited the faith, whether he would be entitled to be full-fledged enquiry as demanded by him? The fallen standard of the appellant is the tip of the iceberg in the discipline of teaching, a noble and learned profession, it is for each teacher and collectively their body to stem the rot to sustain the faith of the society reposed in them. Enquiry is not a panacea but a nail in the coffin. It is self-inspection and correction that is supreme. It is seen that the rules wisely devised have given the power to the Director, the highest authority in the management of the institution to take decision, based on the fact-situation, whether a summary enquiry was necessary or he can dispense with the services of the appellant by giving pay in lieu of notice. Two safeguards have been provided, namely he should record reasons for his decision not to conduct an enquiry under the rules and also post with facts the information with Minister, Human Resources Department, Government of India in that behalf. It is seen from the record that the appellant was given a warning for his sexual advances towards a girl student but he did not correct himself and mend his conduct. He went to the girls’ hostel a 10 p.m. in the night and asked the hostel helper, Bharat Singh to misguide the girl by telling her that Bio-Chemistry Madam was calling her; believing the statement, she came out of the hostel. It is the admitted position that she was an active participant in cultural activities. Taking advantage thereof, he misused the position and made sexual advances towards her. When she ran away from his presence, he pursued her to the room where she locked herself inside, he banged the door. It is the admitted position that she was an active participant in cultural activities. Taking advantage thereof, he misused the position and made sexual advances towards her. When she ran away from his presence, he pursued her to the room where she locked herself inside, he banged the door. When he was informed by the roommates that she was asleep, he rebuked them and took the torch from the room and went away. He admitted his going there and admitting his meeting with the girl but he had given a false explanation which was not found acceptable to the Enquiry Officer, namely Assistant Director. After conducting the enquiry, he submitted the report to the Director and the Director examined the report and found him not worthy to be a teacher in the institution. Under those circumstances, the question arises whether the girl and her roommates should be exposed to the cross-examination and harassment and further publicity.” In our considered view, the Director has correctly taken the decision not to conduct any enquiry exposing the students and modesty of the girl and to terminate the services of the appellant by giving one month’s salary and allowances in lieu of notice as he is a temporary employee under probation. In the circumstances, it is very hazardous to expose the young girls to tardy process of cross-examination. Their statements were supplied to the appellant and he was given an opportunity to controvert the correctness thereof. In view of his admission that he went to the room in the night, though he shifted the timings from 10 p.m to 8 p.m which was not found acceptable to the respondents and that he took the torch from the room, do indicate that he went to the room. The misguiding statement sent through Bharat Singh, the hostel peon, was corroborated by the statements of the students, but for the misstatement, obviously the girl would not have gone out from the room. The misguiding statement sent through Bharat Singh, the hostel peon, was corroborated by the statements of the students, but for the misstatement, obviously the girl would not have gone out from the room. Under those circumstances, the conduct of the appellant is unbecoming of a teacher much less a loco parents, and therefore, dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross-examination are legal and not vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.” In yet another case, namely, Superintendent, Government T.B. Sanitorium and another, (1998) 8 SCC 572 , the contention of an employee that the complainant women patient was not examined and therefore, the inquiry was vitiated was repelled by the Supreme Court in the following words:- “6. The Tribunal has allowed the original application on two grounds; viz. (i) that a copy of the preliminary enquiry report was not furnished to the respondent and (ii) that the complainant or her husband were not examined at the enquiry and, therefore, the respondent had no opportunity to cross-examination. 7. After hearing the counsel for both the parties, we are satisfied that the order of the Tribunal cannot stand. Taking the second ground first, we find that even though the complainant or her husband were not examined at the regular enquiry, there is other evidence including the evidence of the co-worker and another co-patient upon which the finding recorded against the respondent can be sustained. The Tribunal could not have gone into the adequacy of evidence. It could interfere only if it is a case of ‘no evidence’-and that is not the case here. Coming to the first ground, the respondent has not shown that there is any rule requiring that the preliminary enquiry report should be served upon the delinquent officer/employee before commencing the enquiry. No prejudice is shown to have resulted to the respondent on account of not supplying the said report. Coming to the first ground, the respondent has not shown that there is any rule requiring that the preliminary enquiry report should be served upon the delinquent officer/employee before commencing the enquiry. No prejudice is shown to have resulted to the respondent on account of not supplying the said report. In the circumstances, the findings of the disciplinary authority could not have been interfered with by the Tribunal.” Therefore, the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the circumstances appearing against the petitioner pointed to a long and consistent misbehaviour which had not been brought to light on account of the influence that he wielded over the victims and the fact that the ultimate event, namely, the two Junior Research Fellows being compelled to resign to prevent actual molestation or worse, cannot be a circumstance which would absolve the petitioner of all guilt. The fact that they ultimately mustered courage to lodge a complaint with the Vice-Chancellor and could partially follow it up and with the further courage to tender evidence against him cannot be lightly negated. Insofar as the law on the question of sufficiency or otherwise of evidence in such matters is concerned, as already pointed out, it is loaded against the petitioner and therefore, would submit that the petitioner having been imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement is itself liberal punishment given the circumstances against the petitioner and this is apparently on account of recognition of his scholarship and the magnanimity of the University. 5. In the above facts and circumstances and the rival contentions, insofar as the challenge to the findings in respect of the several charges are concerned, the contention that they are without basis and that the inquiry was conducted without regard to form and procedure and the other defences having been set up not being appreciated, need not be addressed in any great detail, if the primary charge against the petitioner, namely, of the petitioner indulging in sexual harassment of women students and colleagues is found to have been brought home on the basis of material evidence, which is not denied. However, that evidence is sought to be interpreted in a vein that is, either to disprove the case against the petitioner or to establish the same, is to be found sufficient to have warranted the punishment imposed on the petitioner, or found wanting in any manner, to absolve the petitioner of the said charge. There is yet another grave charge of the petitioner bluntly and stubbornly refusing to hand over charge of his duties, as directed by the University repeatedly, which, according to the learned Senior Advocate Shri P.S. Rajagopal, would have to be considered as the gravest act of misconduct which alone would warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. In the pleadings, it is sought to be highlighted that there was much heart burn amongst his colleagues and superiors of the petitioner’s academic achievements and that there was a concerted conspiracy hatched by such disgruntled elements, which was the real motive in the allegations having been made against the petitioner, when there was no previous history of any such behaviour. In this regard, from a careful perusal of the record and the material evidence tendered, it cannot be said that any particular instance would indicate that there was a concerted conspiracy against the petitioner. The sequence of events would only indicate that the concerned have proceeded as would be expected of the management, in investigating and establishing serious charges brought by individuals who had little to gain, but much stress and trauma to undergo, in following through with the complaints. The endeavour to demonstrate that the complaint by Ms. Puneeta Pandey and Ms. Divya Shetty dated 15.6.2010 does not indicate any sexual harassment caused to the complainants, would require to be appreciated with the circumstances that have resulted in the complaint in view. The complainants are young female scholars, who had worked under the petitioner for several months prior to the complaint and immediately after their resignation from their posts as Junior Research Fellows under the petitioner. The fact that it is typewritten and jointly signed by both the complainants seeking to paraphrase their fears, apprehensions and doubts, and which was certainly the reason for their abrupt resignation, simultaneously, must be given due weight and concern-the appeal demands. The petitioner was well past middle age and a teacher who certainly had great influence on the complainants. The fact that it is typewritten and jointly signed by both the complainants seeking to paraphrase their fears, apprehensions and doubts, and which was certainly the reason for their abrupt resignation, simultaneously, must be given due weight and concern-the appeal demands. The petitioner was well past middle age and a teacher who certainly had great influence on the complainants. The lack of details of possible physical advances and any groping and other stealthy sexual advances on occasion, seemingly accidental or by design, would hardly be expected to be narrated by the two women. It would have seemed extremely prudish or it could even be thrown against them that they were expected to bring a complaint at an earlier point of time, if that was indeed the situation of having to work with the petitioner in close physical proximity. It is, therefore, necessary to read between the lines and understand the difficulty with which the complainants have been ventured to submit the said complaint to the Vice-Chancellor and only after they had resigned from their positions and were out of the reach of the petitioner. The narration as regards the petitioner’s familiarity with another Research Scholar Ms. Malathi Shettigar and the incident of one of the complainants having witnessed the petitioner petting the said Research Scholar in full view and in her presence, would explain the complainant’s fear of the petitioner’s looming expectation that the complainants would be equally pliant and therefore, having fled the University as the only resort, is glaring. The absence of any actual physical contact or the attempt to molest the complainants need not detain one in reading the writing on the wall, as it were. Added to this, Dr. Taravathi, another female subordinate, who had worked with the petitioner having been directly propositioned, cannot be lightly discarded. She was a Professor and a married woman, who could not have come out against a senior teacher such as the petitioner, who had achieved much on the academic field, without there being substance in the same. Added to this, Dr. Taravathi, another female subordinate, who had worked with the petitioner having been directly propositioned, cannot be lightly discarded. She was a Professor and a married woman, who could not have come out against a senior teacher such as the petitioner, who had achieved much on the academic field, without there being substance in the same. Reference to other women colleagues, who had similarly complained against the petitioner, would indicate that the behaviour of the petitioner was not brought to light as the petitioner had chosen his prey well and ensured that his indiscretions were never revealed, except for this unlucky occasion (for the petitioner), where the two women scholars had mustered courage to bring a complaint and it may also be possible to say that only few other women have come forward to endorse that the petitioner was indeed a lecher and this would amply establish that notwithstanding his scholarship and academic brilliance, the streak of lechery would be a serious disability for the petitioner to be continued in the University, when he was a constant nuisance and a danger to women scholars and his subordinates. The serious objection as to both the complainants having abandoned the complaint and not having tendered evidence in person cannot be raised as a serious infirmity. On the other hand, it is not wholly correct that the complainants had abandoned the complaint. Though one complainant, Ms. Divya Shetty did not choose to appear at the inquiry and did not tender evidence, which according to the other complainant was on account of the threats received over a period of time not to participate at the inquiry and for that reason, the other complainant Ms. Puneetha Pandey having chosen to tender her evidence having been cross-examined, via videoconferencing, by the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was no evidence in support of the complainant. The actual physical presence of Ms. Puneeta Pandey having been dispensed with and thereby being denied a complete opportunity to discredit her evidence is not an objection that is tenable. Puneetha Pandey having chosen to tender her evidence having been cross-examined, via videoconferencing, by the petitioner, it cannot be said that there was no evidence in support of the complainant. The actual physical presence of Ms. Puneeta Pandey having been dispensed with and thereby being denied a complete opportunity to discredit her evidence is not an objection that is tenable. On the other hand, as rightly contended by the learned Senior Advocate Shri P.S. Rajagopal, in situations as above, as considered in the case of AvinashNagra, Supra, which was a case of a post-graduate teacher having been terminated from service on the ground of his improper conduct with the girl students and pursuant to a direction by the apex court in the first round, and in furtherance thereof, the statements of the victim and her roommates having been supplied to the petitioner and on receipt of the explanation submitted by the appellant, a report having been drawn up of immoral sexual behaviour on the part of the appellant, a contention was raised that there was no opportunity to cross-examine the girl student and her colleagues, who had furnished their statements and that therefore, there was violation of the settled legal principles and the principle of audialteram partem. The Supreme Court answered the question as follows:- “In the circumstances, it is very hazardous to expose the young girls to tardy process of cross-examination. Their statements were supplied to the appellant and he was given an opportunity to controvert the correctness thereof. In view of his admission that he went to the room in the night, though he shifted the timings from 10 p.m. to 8 p.m. which was not found acceptable to the respondents and that he took the torch from the room, do indicate that he went to the room. The misguiding statement sent through Bharat Singh, the hostel peon, was corroborated by the statements of the students; but for the misstatement, obviously the girl would not have gone out from the room. Under those circumstances, the conduct of the appellant is unbecoming of a teacher much less a loco parentis and, therefore, dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross-examination are legal and not vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.” Insofar as the contention that the alleged intimacy between the petitioner and Ms. Under those circumstances, the conduct of the appellant is unbecoming of a teacher much less a loco parentis and, therefore, dispensing with regular enquiry under the rules and denial of cross-examination are legal and not vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice.” Insofar as the contention that the alleged intimacy between the petitioner and Ms. Malathi Shettigar and the denial of any such relationship between the petitioner and herself, by Ms. Malathi Shettigar, who was a witness at the inquiry and in terms of the explanation that she had offered in the first instance, even if there was an active and permissive relationship between the two, it could not be expected of a lady to candidly reveal the same at the inquiry, thought the element of fear under which she was working under the petitioner is evident from her explanation dated 22.6.2010. The Supreme Court, in Apparel Export Promotion Council, supra, after extracting the definition of ‘sexual harassment’, as was suggested in Vishaka, supra, has expounded thus: “25. An analysis of the above definition shows that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones, whether directly or by implication, particularly when submission to or rejection of such a conduct by the female employee was capable of being used for effecting the employment of the female employee and unreasonably interfering with her work performance and had the effect of creating an intimidating or hostile working environment for her. 26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment at the place of work, results in violation of the fundamental right to gender equality and right to life and liberty-the two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. As early as in 1993, at the ILO Seminar held at Manila, it was recognized that sexual harassment of women at the workplace was a form of “gender discrimination against women”. In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. That sexual harassment of a female and at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated and that there can be no compromise with such violations, admit of no debate, the message of international instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 (“CEDAW”) and the Beijing Declaration which directs all State parties to take appropriate measures to prevent discrimination of all forms against women besides taken steps to protect the honour and dignity of women is loud and clear. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights contains several provisions particularly important for women. Article 7 recognises her right to fair conditions of work and reflects that women shall not be subjected to sexual harassment at the place of work which may vitiate the working environment. These international instruments cast an obligation on the Indian State to gender-sensitise its laws and the courts are under an obligation to see that the message o the international instruments is not allowed to be drowned. This Court has in numerous cases emphasised that while discussing constitutional requirements, court and counsel must never forget the core principle embodied in the international conventions and instruments and as far as possible, give effect to the principles contained in those international instruments. The court are under an obligation to given due regard to international conventions and norms for construing domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. (See with advantage-Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Admn.; Mackinnon Mackensize andCo. The court are under an obligation to given due regard to international conventions and norms for construing domestic laws, more so, when there is no inconsistency between them and there is a void in domestic law. (See with advantage-Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Admn.; Mackinnon Mackensize andCo. Ltd., v. Audrey D’Costam; Sheela Barse v. Sey., Children’s Aid Society SCC at p.54; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India and D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. SCC at p.438)” In the light of the above, there is no hesitation to dismiss the petition as being devoid of merit as there is no infirmity in the findings arrived at nor could it be said that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the acts of misconduct. The petition stands dismissed.