JUDGMENT : Uma Nath Singh, J. 1. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the writ petition. The petitioner being a Professor in the Department of Mathematics in North Eastern Hill University (for short NEHU), has filed this writ petition on the ground that the Complaint Committee namely the Women's Cell set up in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, AIR 1997 SC 3011 which held a preliminary inquiry, has also been asked to hold a regular inquiry. Thus, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the Committee which, prima facie, held him guilty of misconduct should not have been assigned the job of conducting a regular inquiry. 2. The petitioner joined the respondent-University in the year 1993 as a Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics. Through out his service career of 21 years, there has been no blemish on his character. He commanded equal respect among teachers as well as students, as such, he was promoted as Professor in the Department of Mathematics. He also claims to have supervised research work of several students and to his credit there are a large number of research publications of high repute, even in International Journals. He is also the reviewer of mathematical reviews of the American Mathematical Society. He not only supervised the research work of male students but also of female students. He claims to have been taken by surprise on service of notice dated 6-5-2014 from the Chairperson, Women's Cell, NEHU. The petitioner appeared before the Women's Cell on 7-5-2014, but he was not supplied the copy of the complaint nor any supporting materials for making the allegations against him. Even the names of witnesses who claimed that the petitioner misconducted himself were also not disclosed. Even the findings of the preliminary report were not made available. Thereafter, he was served another notice on 15-5-2014, issued by the Chairperson, Women's Cell, of the University asking him to appear in person on 19-5-2014. Thus, he again appeared on 19-5-2014 but again he was not given any details regarding the complaint made against him. Thereafter, vide letter with reference No. F. 17-269/Estt.II/2012-7991, dated 9-6-2014, he was informed that one of his research scholars had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against him. Thus, he again appeared on 19-5-2014 but again he was not given any details regarding the complaint made against him. Thereafter, vide letter with reference No. F. 17-269/Estt.II/2012-7991, dated 9-6-2014, he was informed that one of his research scholars had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against him. Thus, he was placed under suspension pending conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner challenged the suspension order by way of WP(C) No. 226 of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:- "(i) The respondents No. 2-4 are directed to furnish the copies of the documents mentioned in the said representation dated 13-06-2014 i.e. viz. 1. Copy of the complaint filed against me. 2. Copies of all the documents and evidences submitted by the complainant along with the complaint. 3. Names and addresses of all the witnesses submitted by the complainant along with the complaint. 4. Copies of the statements of all the witnesses, along with the names and addressed, examined by the Women's Cell during its investigation into the present case. 5. Copies of all the documents and evidence received or collected by the Women's Cell during its investigation into the present case. 6. Copy of the report containing the findings of the investigation into the present case conducted by the Women's Cell. 7. Copy of the recommendation made by the Women's Cell to the NEHU Authorities in connection with the present case. 8. Copies of all the Enclosures submitted by the Women's Cell along with its Report and recommendation to the NEHU Authorities in connection with the present case. 9. Copies of all other documents, evidences and statements of persons upon which the recommendation or the report of the Women's Cell in connection with the present case relied to the Writ Petitioner within a period of six days from today. (ii) The writ petitioner shall be allowed to submit his show cause explanation after receiving the copies of the said documents mentioned in the direction No. 1 within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of the said documents. (iii) After receiving the show cause explanation, the University has to decide, if the enquiry is required or not, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the show cause explanation. (iii) After receiving the show cause explanation, the University has to decide, if the enquiry is required or not, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the show cause explanation. (iv) If the enquiry is required to be initiated, Article of charge, statement of imputation and document in support of Article of charge should be furnished to the writ petitioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the show cause explanation and (v) the departmental enquiry, if initiated against the writ petitioner it should be in compliance with the principles of natural justice and it should be completed within a period of three months from the initiation of the Departmental enquiry." 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner was thus furnished the following documents: "That the Petitioner states that thereafter on 4.7.2014 in terms of the order dated 30.6.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP(C) 226 of 2014, the Respondents furnished copies of certain documents to the Petitioner as hereunder: 1. Copy of a letter dated 7.5.2014 written by Sanghita Dutta to the Chairperson Women's Cell NEHU. 2. Copy of a letter dated 7-5-2014 written by Ashish Kumar Das to the Chair person Women's Cell NEHU. 3. Copy of a letter dated 30-4-2014 written by Tonuruchi Olliman to the Vice Chancellor NEHU, Shillong. 4. Copy of a letter dated 30-4-2014 written by Tonuruchi Olliman to the Vice Chancellor NEHU, Shillong. 5. Copy of a letter dated 30-4-2014 written by Tonuruchi Oliman to the dean of Students Welfare, NEHU, Shillong. 6. Copy of a letter dated 26-5-2014 enclosing the Report of the Women Cell and the same was duly acknowledged by the Petitioner." 4. The petitioner submitted his show-cause explanation to the allegations levelled against him within the time frame permitted by the Court vide order dated 10-7-2014. The details of the explanation submitted (vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition) are as under: "Dear Sir, With reference to the subject mentioned above I would like to inform you that on the 4th of July' 2014, the Legal Officer of NEHU, Shillong, handed over to me your letter referenced as above along with the Xerox copies of the following documents. D. 1. A letter dated 7.5.2014 written by Sanghita Dutta to the Chairperson Women's Cell NEHU, containing one page. D. 1. A letter dated 7.5.2014 written by Sanghita Dutta to the Chairperson Women's Cell NEHU, containing one page. D. 2 A letter dated 7-5-2014 written by Ashish Kumar Das to the Chair person Women's Cell NEHU, containing one page. D. 3 A letter of complaint dated April 30, 2014 written by Tonuruchi Olimman to the Vice Chancellor NEHU, containing one page. D. 4 A copy of letter (D3) marked for the Chairperson, Women's Cell, NEHU, containing one page. D. 5 A letter of complaint dated April 30, 2014 written by Tonuruchi Oliman to the dean of Students Welfare, NEHU, containing one page. D. 6 A covering letter dated 26th May, 2014, containing one page written by the Chairperson, Women's Cell, NEHU, to the Registrar, NEHU, enclosing the Report of the Women Cell. D. 7 The Report of the Women's Cell containing six pages. Your letter referenced as above also says that the documents listed above are the relevant available documents which are being supplied to me in compliance with the Judgment and Order dated 30-6-2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya in the Writ Petition No. WP(C) No. 226/2014. In view of all the documents (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7) listed above your letter referenced as above, I now submit my Show Cause Explanation in compliance with the Judgment and Order dated 30-6-2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya in the Writ Petition No. WP(C) No. 226/2014 as follows: E. 1 The copies of all the documents were not supplied to me in compliance with the Judgment and Order dated 30-6-2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya in the Writ Petition No. WP(C) No. 226/2014. E. 2 I have been teaching in the department of Mathematics, NEHU, Shillong, for the last 21 years. A number of students have completed their M. Phil and Ph. D. program under my supervision. In particular, three girl students, namely, Ms. Kuwali Das, Ms. Jutirekha Dutta and Ms. Sabani Kanwar have completed their M. Phil. Program successfully under my supervision. Over the years, I have worked with a number female colleagues in the department of Mathematics, namely, Dr. Chabi Rani Mandal, Dr. Sanghita Dutta and Dr. Ardeline Mary Buhphang. None of them ever had any such problem working with me. E. 3 The complainant Ms. Tonuruchi Olimman took admission into her Ph. Program successfully under my supervision. Over the years, I have worked with a number female colleagues in the department of Mathematics, namely, Dr. Chabi Rani Mandal, Dr. Sanghita Dutta and Dr. Ardeline Mary Buhphang. None of them ever had any such problem working with me. E. 3 The complainant Ms. Tonuruchi Olimman took admission into her Ph. D Program in the month of March' 2014 under the supervision of Dr. Sanghita Dutta and I used to clarify her mathematical doubts as and when she asked me for that. But soon she started finding the subject matter of the program very-very difficult and beyond her ability because after passing her M.Sc. in 2012 she did not do any serious Mathematics for more than one year. Soon she started abstaining from her classes quite frequently without giving any information. At this her supervisor Dr. Dutta became very upset and on 22nd April' 2014 Dr Dutta told her to look for some other supervisor because her irregularity and insincerity was not acceptable to Dr. Dutta. Then after remaining absent again for about a week, Ms. Olimman suddenly appeared in my Faculty-Room on the 29th April, 2014 at about 11.30 AM and sounded quite confident that I would readily accept her as my Ph. D Student. While she was sitting in my Faculty-Room, Dr. Dutta happened to come to my room for some work but Ms. Olimman totally ignored her. This made me very upset and in order create a sense of realization in her mind I rebuked her badly for her arrogant attitude and lack of dedication. I also told her to look for some other supervisor. She tried her best to convince me but on being unsuccessful she left my room. She found that there was no option left for her and as a result of sheer frustration she decided to conduct a personal vendetta on me and Dr. Dutta. It is really surprising to note that if I had caused so much of serious harassment to Ms. Olimman then what made her come to me again on 29th April' 2014 after being reprimanded and discarded by her supervisor. E. 4 During my appearance before the Women's Cell my oral statement was not recorded and was never supplied to me. Even the complainant Ms. Olimman then what made her come to me again on 29th April' 2014 after being reprimanded and discarded by her supervisor. E. 4 During my appearance before the Women's Cell my oral statement was not recorded and was never supplied to me. Even the complainant Ms. Olimman did not make any appearance before the members of the Cell, and her statement also was not recorded and was never supplied to me. None of the two separate letters of complaints (D5) and (D3) were substantiated by the complainant by her appearance in person before the Women's Cell. E. 5 I have never given any statement to the Women's Cell that Dr. Sanghita Dutta requested me to help her in supervising her students. Dr. Dutta's oral statement was also not supplied to me. E. 6 I never said that I don't have the phone numbers of my Research Scholars. On the contrary, in today's world of mobile phone and telephone such a statement, is impossible. The Women's Cell twisted my statement according to its own convenience. E. 7 The 'Findings' in the Report (D7) of the Women's Cell, which depended only on three documents, (D1), (D2) and (D3), are arrived at with a biased and prejudiced mindset under certain presumptions without bothering for the existence of any evidence. E. 8 I categorically deny all the allegations labeled against me in the complaint filed by the complainant Ms. Tonuruchi Olimman. I have never flirted with her. I have never said, never wanted to do and never done anything wrong to her which constitutes any kind of sexual harassment. Also I have never made phone calls in her mobile asking her to come to my chamber. The allegations labeled against me are totally false and fabricated, and are made with malicious intent. I do not have any relationship with Dr. Sanghita Dutta and I have never said anything in this regard to Ms. Olimman. E. 9 The complainant realized very well that with her kind of sincerity and dedication it was impossible to get a Ph. D degree in Mathematics. Moreover, when she found that neither I nor Dr. Dutta would give her any undue favour, she decided to remove me from the system and put a social stigma on Dr. Dutta by misusing the legal weapon available with her. D degree in Mathematics. Moreover, when she found that neither I nor Dr. Dutta would give her any undue favour, she decided to remove me from the system and put a social stigma on Dr. Dutta by misusing the legal weapon available with her. E. 10 It is not true that I kept myself aware of the whereabouts of the complainant. The number of newly admitted research scholars in Pure Mathematics in our department being, only four, the absence of even a single student becomes prominently visible. E. 11 The apparent contradiction derived by Women's Cell from the statement of Dr. Dutta and myself (D1 and D2) is incorrect and is a nonexistent one. E. 12 When I came to know that the complainant has taken such course of action because of my rebuke and scolding, as a teacher it was my duty to inform her mother that my rebuke and scolding should not be taken negatively and console the complainant accordingly. However, the Women's Cell completely twisted and misinterpreted the meanings of those messages. In view of the Show Cause Explanation given above, I would like to request you to kindly quash the Report (D7) submitted by the Women's Cell including the Findings and Recommendations contained therein, revoke my suspension and reinstate me into the service dropping all the allegations labeled against me. Thanking you in anticipation." 5. However, as per communication dated 18-7-2014, he was informed that an enquiry into the matter of sexual harassment was being initiated against him and pending the enquiry, he was to remain under suspension. The petitioner again received a memorandum dated 23-7-2014 from the Vice Chancellor, NEHU informing him on behalf of Executive Council that it is proposed to hold inquiry against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules on the matter of misconduct, and along with that, the statement of Articles of charges framed against him and the documents in support were also supplied. One of the documents received by the petitioner was a complaint filed by one Shri Pinkimoni Goswami against him which never found mention in the first round of litigation which gave the impression that this document was added later. Thus the petitioner filed WP(C) 259 of 2014 and the same is pending for adjudication. One of the documents received by the petitioner was a complaint filed by one Shri Pinkimoni Goswami against him which never found mention in the first round of litigation which gave the impression that this document was added later. Thus the petitioner filed WP(C) 259 of 2014 and the same is pending for adjudication. A notice had been issued vide order dated 4-8-2014 directing that the petitioner may reply to the authorities concerned by 5-8-2014 in terms of the order dated 30-6-2014 passed in WP(C) No. 226 of 2014. Thereafter, he received another document dated 18-8-2014 whereby he was informed that the inquiry authority appointed by the University to inquire into the allegations of sexual harassment against the petitioner was to hold its hearing on 28-8-2014, and the petitioner was also directed to remain present on the said date and time. That letter also did not disclose as to who has been appointed the Inquiry Authority. The petitioner made a representation on 20-8-2014 to the Vice Chancellor requesting him to furnish the name and address of the Inquiry Officer who will conduct the inquiry against him. It appears that on 21-8-2014, another notice of first hearing was issued by the Women's Cell, NEHU vide letter No. F. No. 1/IA/NEHU/2014 dated as above. Again on 22-8-2014, the petitioner received a letter from the Vice Chancellor whereby he was informed that the Women's Cell of the University would be the Inquiry Authority to hold the inquiry against him. It was the same Women's Cell on the basis of whose report the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. In fact, earlier the Women's Cell had submitted two reports against the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner took objection that the same authority on whose report the respondent-University has placed reliance for initiating departmental inquiry could not have been appointed as inquiry officer to hold the regular proceedings. The petitioner also claimed it to be violation of principle of natural justice. It was also in violation of the directives of the judgment and order of this Court dated 30-6-2014 as the element of bias and partiality was well reflected in the conduct of the disciplinary authority. Moreover, the regular inquiry, if allowed to be conducted by the Women's Cell of NEHU, would cause serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition submitted on behalf of respondent Nos. Moreover, the regular inquiry, if allowed to be conducted by the Women's Cell of NEHU, would cause serious prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition submitted on behalf of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely, NEHU, Executive Council, and Registrar, there is a denial of the averments made in the writ petition. It is asserted that the constitution of Women's Cell has been done only in accordance with the provision of law and its function is to inquire into allegations of cases of sexual harassment in the University. Hon'ble the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Vishaka & Ors-Vrs-State of Rajasthan (Supra) has laid down the guidelines for setting up competent authority at the work place for looking into the allegations of sexual harassment. The said guidelines laid down in the judgment have been declared as law in exercise of power under Article 141 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court. In terms thereof, the University vide Ordinance OD 9 has set up a Women's Cell. The composition of the Committee is also strictly in accordance with the guidelines. The power and function of the Women's Cell have been provided in Clause 4 of Ordinance OD 9. Sub-clause (f) of the said law empowers the Women's Cell to report to Chairman, Executive Council, if there lies a prima facie case of legal or disciplinary action against the perpetrator and to pursue the matter to its logical end. 7. The Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (for short CCS CCA Rules), governs disciplinary proceedings against an employee of a University which is a Central University. Rule 14 thereof provides for imposing penalties. At the direction of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Medha Kotwal Lele and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 2013 SC 93 , the Complaint Committee set up under the judgment of Vishaka's case shall be deemed to be an inquiry authority under the CCS CCA Rules with particular reference to proviso to Rule 14 (2) of the Rules. It is also an averment that the Women's Cell being the complaint committee having found a prima facie case of alleged sexual harassment against the petitioner, recommended to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. It is also an averment that the Women's Cell being the complaint committee having found a prima facie case of alleged sexual harassment against the petitioner, recommended to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The Executive Council of the University duly approved the proceedings and initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner which, in turn, appointed the Women's Cell being the complaint committee as the inquiry authority. Thus the Women's Cell is only discharging the statutory duty as provided in the Rules and the petitioner could not have alleged any bias against the committee. 8. The petitioner was supplied all the necessary documents to defend his case. The Petitioner also challenged the suspension order dated 9-6-2014 but the same was not interfered with by this Court. It is also the submission on behalf of respondents that mere reference to preliminary report submitted by the Women's Cell could not disqualify the cell from conducting the inquiry as none of the charges has been drawn up basing on the reports. It would also not violate any of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. In this background, upon filing of the instant writ petition namely, WP(C) No. 301 of 2014, this Court sought the response vide the order dated 28-8-2014, and the reply in opposition has been filed, essentially, in compliance thereto. 9. Thus the contour of rival oral submissions is essentially based on the averments made in the petition and the affidavit-in-opposition. However, the one and only question that has been highlighted on behalf of the petitioner is that the body which held the preliminary inquiry, no matter it has acquired the statutory status in CCS CCA Rules, has disqualified itself to hold a regular inquiry upon making inculpatory recommendations against the petitioner on examining the materials on record and hearing him in person. The principal submission on behalf of the University in answer thereto is based on the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS CCA Rules. The principal submission on behalf of the University in answer thereto is based on the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS CCA Rules. The said proviso on reproduction would read as: "[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 procedure 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 procedure laid down in these rules.]" 10. The Women's Cell is said to have been constituted as the complaint committee in compliance of the order of Hon'ble the Apex Court passed in Medha Kotwal Lele's case (Supra) but once the committee had conducted a preliminary inquiry and after inquiry submitted two incriminating recommendations against the petitioner, it has disqualified itself from holding a regular inquiry which, if allowed, to be carried out by the Committee, will be in violation of the principle of natural justice and fair play and that can not be given a go-by. The burden to prove the allegations would be on the complainant and the competent authority that have levelled the charges. There should be a presumption of innocence in favour of the petitioner till the charges made against him are proved. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the judgment in Om Prakash Chantala vs. Kanwar Bhan and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 417 , has held that the right to reputation is an inseparable facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. In this background, probably learned counsel for the respondent-University also feels that the University may, if so directed, can agree to appoint some other authority to hold the regular inquiry, and in future the complaint committee shall be assigned only the job of holding a regular inquiry. In the case of Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. In this background, probably learned counsel for the respondent-University also feels that the University may, if so directed, can agree to appoint some other authority to hold the regular inquiry, and in future the complaint committee shall be assigned only the job of holding a regular inquiry. In the case of Shri Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and Others, AIR 2013 SC 2098 , it has been held that the purpose of conducting an inquiry against a person is not only with a view to establish the charges levelled against him or to impose a penalty, but it is also held with the object that such an inquiry shall unveil the truth of the matter, and in that sense, the outcome of inquiry may also vindicate the stand of the delinquent employee, and result in his exoneration. Therefore, fair action on the part of the authority concerned is a paramount necessity. Besides, principle of natural justice can not be put in a strait jacket and their applicability depends upon the content, facts and circumstances of each case. This observation has been recorded by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the decision rendered in the case of Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur Vs. State Bank of India and Another, AIR 2005 SC 314 . In the instant case, it is alleged that the element of bias and partiality is well reflected in the conduct of disciplinary authority in appointing the Chairperson of Women's Cell as the inquiry authority, which though has been tried to be explained by referring to the proviso to Rule 14(2) of CCS CCA Rules, but that may not satisfy the requirements of fair play. Moreover, the proviso has been added to a Rule which provides for procedure for imposing major penalties. In yet another judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Dr Rash Lal Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (1994) 3 SCALE 18 it is held that in absence of contrary indication in statute, procedural fairness is an implied requirement to protect arbitrary action where Statute confers wide power coupled with wide discretion of the authority. 11. Thus, I allow the writ petition and quash the impugned memo No. F. 17-269/Esst-II/2012-8242 dated 22.8.2014 issued by the Registrar, NEHU, Shillong. However, it would be open for the University to appoint some other authority as the Inquiry Officer, if it is so advised. 11. Thus, I allow the writ petition and quash the impugned memo No. F. 17-269/Esst-II/2012-8242 dated 22.8.2014 issued by the Registrar, NEHU, Shillong. However, it would be open for the University to appoint some other authority as the Inquiry Officer, if it is so advised. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that since the time of three months granted for holding the inquiry shall expire on 30-9-2014, this Court may consider to extend the period. Thus, the period of inquiry is extended by another 3(three) months and in terms of this order, the writ petition is disposed of.