Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he has put in more than 16 years of unblemished service with the Central Government, having held several posts in various capacities. He had been working as an Assistant Registrar, Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, until 17.4.1995. Thereafter, he had joined the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai. At the relevant point of time, he was an Assistant Registrar of the said Institute. While so, one Ms.Geetha claiming to be a non muster roll employee, attached to the Indian Institute of Technology Hospital, had met the petitioner at his office, on 16.6.2000, and she had offered a sum of Rs.500/-regarding the appointment of two of her friends in the institute. 3. The petitioner has further stated that he had made a complaint about the said incident, to the Director of the Institute, vide his letter, dated 19.6.2000. However, the third respondent herein had issued a letter to the petitioner relating to the complaint received from Ms.Geetha stating that the petitioner had used filthy and unparliamentary language against her. The petitioner had been asked to submit his explanation, on or before 26.6.2000. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, denying the charges levelled against him, on 21.6.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner had been informed by the third respondent, by a letter, dated 5.9.2000, stating that the competent authority had ordered an enquiry to be conducted into the charges levelled against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner had been asked to appear for an enquiry, even though no definite charges had been framed against him. However, by a letter, dated 11.1.2001, the petitioner had been informed about the enquiry that had been initiated against him and that the explanation submitted by the petitioner had not been found to be satisfactory. In spite of several letters issued by the petitioner asking for clarifications, there was no response from the authorities concerned. Thereafter, on 19.1.2001, the petitioner had been dismissed from service, by way of an order served on him, along with the Resolution No.170 of the Board of Governors and the findings of the enquiry officer. 5. The petitioner had challenged the said order, before this Court, by way of a writ petition, in W.P.No.3388 of 2001. Thereafter, on 19.1.2001, the petitioner had been dismissed from service, by way of an order served on him, along with the Resolution No.170 of the Board of Governors and the findings of the enquiry officer. 5. The petitioner had challenged the said order, before this Court, by way of a writ petition, in W.P.No.3388 of 2001. By an order, dated 11.10.2002, this Court had allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to initiate a fresh enquiry, as there was gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Pursuant to the said order a fresh enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner, based on a number of charges, including the charge made by Ms.Geetha that the petitioner had sexually harassed her. However, in spite of the requests made by the petitioner for further information on the charges levelled against him, he had been asked to submit his defence, after the examination of the complainant and the other witnesses. The petitioner had filed his defence statement, dated 8.3.2003, by post. 6. In the defence statement submitted by the petitioner he had denied the allegations made against him. The enquiry report had been placed before the Board of Governors, on 15.2.2003. The petitioner had submitted his written representation, on 19.6.2003, requesting for certain clarifications and pointing out several deficiencies in the enquiry. However, the Board of Governors had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed a grave misconduct by sexually harassing Ms.Geetha and by submitting a false complaint to the Director, on the charge of attempting to bribe the petitioner. The petitioner had been imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service, as per the statute 13(9)(b)(VII) of the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had been dismissed from service, based on the false charges levelled against him by Ms.Geetha, and on the charge that the petitioner had made a false complaint against her. The learned counsel had further submitted that the enquiry had not been completed, within the time stipulated by this Court, by its order, dated 11.10.2002, made in W.P.No.3388 of 2001. No subsistence allowance had been paid to the petitioner when the enquiry proceedings were being conducted. Therefore, the petitioner had been constrained to file a contempt petition, in Contempt Petition No.532 of 2003. No subsistence allowance had been paid to the petitioner when the enquiry proceedings were being conducted. Therefore, the petitioner had been constrained to file a contempt petition, in Contempt Petition No.532 of 2003. This Court, by its order, dated 17.10.2003, had directed the respondents to pay the subsistence allowance to the petitioner for the period, from November, 2002 to 8.6.2003. Thereafter, the authorities concerned became biased against the petitioner and they had passed the impugned order. The learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the relevant documents had not been furnished to the petitioner at the time of the enquiry. He had not been permitted to engage a defence assistant, as per Rule 14(8) Indian Institute of Technology Statutes Rules. The charges levelled against the petitioner were false and frivolous and the enquiry conducted against him was biased in nature. 8. The learned counsel had also pointed out that a number of querries raised by the petitioner, before the enquiry had been conducted, in respect of the charges levelled against him, had not been answered. There was no proper explanation for the three different letters submitted by the complainant on the same date i.e. on 16.6.2000. The charge of sexual harassment was only an after thought and it had been made only with the mala fide motive of punishing the petitioner for the irregularities pointed out by him in the administration of the Institute. 9. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents the averments and allegations made by the petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, have been denied. It has been stated that the disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner, based on the written complaint submitted by one Ms.Geetha alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner. Based on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner, on 19.6.2000, an order, dated 19.2.2001, had been passed, dismissing him from service. The said order had been challenged by the petitioner, before this Court, by way of writ petition, in W.P.No.3388 of 2001. This Court, by its order, dated 11.10.2002, had directed the respondents to initiate a fresh enquiry, within a stipulated period. 10. Pursuant to the said order a de nova enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner and it had been completed within the time specified by this Court. This Court, by its order, dated 11.10.2002, had directed the respondents to initiate a fresh enquiry, within a stipulated period. 10. Pursuant to the said order a de nova enquiry had been initiated against the petitioner and it had been completed within the time specified by this Court. The petitioner did not appear before the enquiry officer, during the enquiry, on 10.2.2003, 17.2.2003, 26.2.2003 and 5.3.2003. Even though the charge of sexual harassment was made out in the charge memo issued to the petitioner, at the first instance, a clear and definite charge memo had been issued to the petitioner, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, in W.P.No.3388 of 2001. Inspite of a number of opportunities having been given to the petitioner he did not appear before the enquiry officer. He had only submitted a written statement defending his case. The enquiry had been conducted by the enquiry officer following all the procedures established by law and by adhering to the principles of natural justice. There cannot be any complaint by the petitioner against the enquiry conducted in respect of the charges levelled against him. Since, the misconduct proved against the petitioner was grave in nature and as the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, an order had been passed dismissing the petitioner from service. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions. 11.1. In Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K.Chopra [ (1999) 1 SCC 759 ], the Supreme Court had held that "sexual harassment" at the work place of a female employee covers all actions and gestures which would have the tendency, either directly or by implication, to outrage the modesty of the female employee. It is incompatible with the dignity and honour of women and there can be no compromise in respect of such violations. 11.2. In State of U.P. Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha [(2009) (8) SCC 310], it had been held that it would not be open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and to examine the findings recorded by him, as a Court of appeal and to reach its own conclusion. 12. 11.2. In State of U.P. Vs. Man Mohan Nath Sinha [(2009) (8) SCC 310], it had been held that it would not be open to the High Court to reappreciate and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and to examine the findings recorded by him, as a Court of appeal and to reach its own conclusion. 12. In view of the averments made by the petitioner, as well as the respondents and the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 25.7.2003. 13. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not persuaded to hold that the enquiry had been conducted in a mala fide manner. Even though a number allegations had been made by the petitioner, against the Director and the other authorities of the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, they have not been impleaded as respondents, in their personal capacity, in the present writ petition. Further, the petitioner has not been in a position to substantiate his claim that the complaint of sexual harassment against him is false and motivated. The complaint made by the petitioner that he had been offered a sum of Rs.500/-as bribe, for the appointment of two non muster roll workers, had not been proved. Even otherwise this Court does not sit on appeal against the findings of the enquiry officer, made during the enquiry proceedings conducted by him. Unless it is found that the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse or based on no evidence this Court would not interfere with such findings. The charge of "sexual harassment" is a very serious charge and when such charge stands proved it would amount to a major misconduct. The petitioner, who was holding the responsible post of Assistant Registrar, ought to have behaved in a responsible manner. Instead he had acted in a highly irresponsible manner amounting to a major misconduct, deserving the punishment of dismissal from service. It is also noted that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in the year, 2009, challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in the year, 2003. Instead he had acted in a highly irresponsible manner amounting to a major misconduct, deserving the punishment of dismissal from service. It is also noted that the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition in the year, 2009, challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent in the year, 2003. No proper explanation has been given by the petitioner for the belated filing of the writ petition, before this Court, invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. In view of the principleslaid down by the Supreme Court, in Vishaka and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan [ (1997) 6 SCC 241 ], this Court does not find the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed on the petitioner, to be disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against the petitioner. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.