JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the proceedings passed by the second respondent / the Chairman, Governing Council, Nachimuthu Polytechnic College, Pollachi, in Ref.NPTC.A4-166/2010, dated 19.04.2010, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently, to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with all attendant benefits. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that while the petitioner was working as Junior Drafting Officer in the respondent College, he was issued with a suspension order dated 17.04.2003 alleging that the management of the College has received lot of complaints from the lady staff members and a student for indecent behaviour of the petitioner. Thereafter, though the petitioner had personally explained to the third respondent and thereby requested him to revoke the suspension order dated 17.04.2003, the same was not considered by the third respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent issued a memo dated 14.07.2003 directing him to appear before the Enquiry committee on 30.07.2003, without there-being any charge memo mentioning the charges framed against him. He further submitted that the Enquiry Committee, without even giving any to notice to the petitioner, arrived the decision stating that the complaints received from the lady staff members are found correct and therefore, further action would be initiated against the petitioner as per law and rules framed therein. Eventhough he personally requested to furnish the complaint copy and other relevant documents to defend his case before the Enquiry Committee, the same was not considered by the respondents. But, all of a sudden, the second respondent/Chairman, after a lapse of three years, issued a charge sheet on 09.01.2007, levelling two charges against the petitioner, which are extracted hereunder; "1. Thiru. Jagannathan behaved in an indecent manner to six women employees of the institution by uttering indecent words using indecent language in asking for their personal details and hurting their feelings. 2. Thiru. Jagannathan spoke in a rough manner to students using bad language unnecessarily." 3. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed and during the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner appeared on 30.06.2007 and one Mr.K.Sakthivel appeared on behalf of the management side. Though he was appeared in the enquiry proceedings, he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and finally, the Enquiry Officer concluded against the petitioner finding him guilty of all the charges. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was appointed and during the enquiry proceedings, the petitioner appeared on 30.06.2007 and one Mr.K.Sakthivel appeared on behalf of the management side. Though he was appeared in the enquiry proceedings, he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend his case and finally, the Enquiry Officer concluded against the petitioner finding him guilty of all the charges. The third respondent had issued a show cause notice dated 29.05.2008 to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of removal from service should not be imposed and also further directed him to reply to the show cause notice within 15 days. Thus, in totality, he contended, entire enquiry proceedings and also the charge memo are vague, motivated and concocted story created for the purpose of removing the petitioner from service. Though the petitioner, on receipt of the show cause notice, submitted his explanation dated 11.06.2008, the second respondent failed to consider the same and in contra, passed the impugned order removing him from service, which is, he pleaded, illegal and contrary to law. 4. In support of his submission, he has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kishan v. Union of India and others ( (1995) 6 SCC 157 ) to contend that imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of the imputation, inasmuch as, he pleaded, when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language and no strait-jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstance would warrant dismissal from service. By pointing out so the ratio of the Apex Court, he contended that it is not open to the respondents to pass the impugned order removing him from service, when charges levelled against the petitioner were not very serious in nature. 5. By pointing out so the ratio of the Apex Court, he contended that it is not open to the respondents to pass the impugned order removing him from service, when charges levelled against the petitioner were not very serious in nature. 5. Again, to support his contention that the charges levelled against the petitioner are not supported by any evidence, he has also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Narmada Pd.Yadav v. State of M.P. And others ( (2007) 1 SCC 681 ) for a proposition that, in absence of any evidence to prove the charge in question, the penalty imposed against the petitioner by the respondents cannot at all be countenanced. 6. On the question of quantum of punishment, learned counsel contended that when the respondents were not able to substantiate the charges by holding detailed enquiry, the removal of service is unsustainable in law and to withstand this argument, he has also relied upon yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and another ( (2011) 14 SCC 379 ) for a proposition that enquiry must be conducted according to the principles of natural justice and that the charges should be specific, definite and giving details which formed basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. With these submissions, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, by filing a detailed counter affidavit, submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner has suppressed the materials facts in the affidavit. Adding further, he submitted that while the petitioner was serving as Junior Drafting Officer, the management of the College received lot of complaints from the lady staff members alleging that the petitioner had conversation with the lady staff members using indecent words. Therefore, since the complaint being in the nature of sexual harassment of women in a work place, a Six Members Committee was constituted to enquire into the complaint against the petitioner and thereby to submit findings to the management. Though sufficient time was granted to appear before the Enquiry Committee, the petitioner did not appear before the Committee, hence, the Committee arrived ex-parte decision stating that the complaint received from the lady staff members was correct. Though sufficient time was granted to appear before the Enquiry Committee, the petitioner did not appear before the Committee, hence, the Committee arrived ex-parte decision stating that the complaint received from the lady staff members was correct. A copy of the said decision was also communicated to the petitioner. Even after the report of the Enquiry Committee, since there was no reply from the petitioner, the Governing Council, by considering the nature of complaints received from the lady staff members, issued a charge memo on 07.02.2006 calling upon him to submit his reply to the complaint. Even after the receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner did not respond to the charge memo. Again, the matter was placed before the Governing Council. The Governing Council, in its meeting held on 29.12.2006, by considering the petitioner's repeated failure to respond to the charge memo and also to the report of the Enquiry Committee, resolved to hold a regular enquiry by appointing an independent enquiry officer, and the same was also communicated to the petitioner informing him about the independent enquiry to be conducted on 30.06.2007. For the first time, the petitioner appeared only before the independent enquiry officer and thereby submitted his reply on 29.06.2007, wherein the petitioner, with reference to charge no.1, admitted his guilt stating that he had conversations with some lady staff members, and with reference to charge no.2, learned counsel for respondents stated that the petitioner has again admitted the occurrence of incident. With these facts, learned counsel for respondents contended that when the petitioner, in his letter dated 29.06.2007, has admitted the charges levelled against him, and thereby he has also requested the Chairman to drop the charges levelled against him, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from service, therefore, the same need not be interfered by this Court. 8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was suspended from service on 17.04.2003 pursuant to the complaint received from six lady staff members in the nature of sexual harassment of women in a work place and one another complaint from a student that the petitioner has used very harsh words and not treated him in the manner as a student. To enquire into this complaint, a Six Members Committee was constituted and the said committee directed the petitioner to appear before the enquiry committee on 30.07.2003. But, the petitioner did not appear before the Committee even after several opportunity given to him, hence, the Committee arrived ex-parte decision and thereby found him guilty of all the charges. Though a copy of the report of the committee was communicated to the petitioner, he did not respond to the said report and thereafter, the matter was placed before the Governing Council. The Governing Council, in its meeting held on 31.01.2006, by considering the nature of complaints received from the lady staff members, issued another charge memo on 07.02.2006. Even to this second charge memo, the petitioner did not respond to the same and therefore, again, the matter was placed before the Governing Council, whereby the Governing Council, in its meeting held on 29.12.2006, resolved to frame two specific charges and accordingly, a charge sheet dated 09.01.2007 was issued to the petitioner. Again, since the petitioner has not responded to the charge sheet, the Governing Council appointed a regular independent enquiry officer and that was also again communicated to the petitioner informing the date of enquiry fixed on 30.06.2007. Only at this point of time, the petitioner gave his reply dated 29.06.2007 admitting his guilt. Relevant portion of his reply is extracted hereunder:-- "Reply to the charge No.1 I kindly want to say, I admit that I had some conversations with some lady staff members of this campus during my service. I did not deliver any indecent language with any lady staff member of the campus during my service. Reply for charge no.2 I remembered that one student hit me at verandah of Silver Jubilee building. I was irritated and advised the student not to behave like in this manner in future." On receipt of reply from the petitioner, the Governing Council, in its meeting held on 17.03.2008, noted thus on the disciplinary action against the petitioner, employed as Junior Drafting Officer;-- "The Council considered the charges found in the charge sheet dated 09.01.2007 issued to Thiru.N.Jaganathan and observed that the charges are off serious misconduct. The Council considered the stand of Thiru.N.Jaganathan in admitting the charges. The Council considered the stand of Thiru.N.Jaganathan in admitting the charges. On deliberations, the Council observed that the acts of misconduct committed by Thiru.N.Jaganathan are off highly indecent and demeaning behaviour which is a very serious misconduct which spoils the reputation of the institution and damages the dignity of woman employees of the institution. On further deliberations, the Council observed that an employee who is duty bound to interact with woman employees and woman students in the institution in a daily basis, who has exhibited such highly undesirable behaviour cannot be allowed to continue his duties in the institution. On further deliberations, the Council observed that the proven act of misconduct committed by Thiru.N.Jaganathan deserves to be severely punished so as to create a deterrent against such tendencies in future and to uphold the dignity of the employees and that of the institution. It was hence resolved to propose punishment of removal from service to Thiru.N.Jagannathan, employed as Junior Drafting Officer in the institution. It was further resolved to authorize the Principal in charge to issue a notice to Thiru.N.Jaganathan calling upon him to show cause as to why the proposed punishment of removal from service should not be imposed on him and to submit the response of Thiru.N.Jaganathan to this Council for further consideration." 10. Again the Governing Council, in its meeting held on 12.04.2010, authorised the Chairman of the Governing Council to issue an order of removal from service to the petitioner. Relevant portion of the said minutes of meeting is extracted hereunder:-- "...............The Council observed that the said reply of Thiru.Jagannathan did not provide any further reason or ground to reconsider the proposed punishment. On further deliberations, the Council observed that the dignity and decorum of the Institution needs to be maintained which is basically required to maintain a maximum discipline situation in the Institution. Misbehaviour any nature more particularly towards woman Teaching staff and students cannot be treated with any lesser punishment. The Council therefore observed that the proposed punishment cannot be altered. It was therefore resolved to confirm the proposed punishment of removal from service to Thiru.N.Jagannathan and impose the same on him. Misbehaviour any nature more particularly towards woman Teaching staff and students cannot be treated with any lesser punishment. The Council therefore observed that the proposed punishment cannot be altered. It was therefore resolved to confirm the proposed punishment of removal from service to Thiru.N.Jagannathan and impose the same on him. It was further resolved to authorise the Chairman of the Governing Council to issue an order of removal of the service to Thiru.N.Jagannathan employed as Junior Drafting Officer in the College and inform the same to the Council." A mere perusal of the above said observations of the Governing Council show that the order of removal was passed after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, following the procedure of law and based on his voluntary admission, which is perfect and legal, hence, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of merits. Even, in his reply dated 29.06.2007, the petitioner, after admitting the charges, tendered his apology and thereby requested the institution to consider his case sympathetically and to stop all further action against him. Therefore, when the petitioner himself admitted the charges, tendered his apology before the independent enquiry officer and requested to stop the enquiry proceedings, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not provided with adequate opportunity to defend his case, cannot stand to any good reason. 11. Given the nature of case on hand, it is pertinent to observe that sexual harassment complaints in educational institutions, more so when done by persons in position of responsibility, like the petitioner, who was working as Junior Drafting Officer, are grave issues, therefore, grave issues have to be dealt with seriously. Thus, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevance to the case on hand, since the petitioner himself admitted the charges as stated above. 12. In fact, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Narmada Pd.Yadav (cited supra) for a proposition that, in the absence of any evidence to prove the charge in question, major penalty should not be imposed, is liable to be rejected, since the petitioner has admitted the charges in his reply dated 29.06.2007 and also pleaded for mercy, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to say that there was no evidence to prove the charges in question. Secondly, another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner in Ram Kishan's case(cited supra) to contend that imposition of punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges, is also liable to be repelled, in view of yet another judgment of the Apex Court in Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others ( (1997) 2 SCC 534 ), wherein, the Apex Court, while defining the role of the teacher in an educational institution, made it clear that the teacher's character and conduct should be more like Rishi and as loco parentis and such is the duty, responsibility and charge expected of a teacher. Besides, the Apex Court in the said judgment going one step further has also held that if the conduct of a teacher is proved prima-facie unbecoming of a teacher, 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. The above said judgment rendered in respect of the teaching staff in educational institutions, undoubtedly, would mutatis mutandis apply to the non-teaching staff as well, like the petitioner, lest discipline inside the college campus will be at risk. 12. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the respondents cannot be said to be unreasonable or suffering from any legal infirmity warranting interference. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of any merits. No Costs.