JUDGMENT Dr. A.K. RATH, J. - By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed inter alia to quash the charges framed by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-6 and the show cause notice dated 24.4.2004 issued by the Registrar, Sambalpur University vide Annexure-14 for imposing punishment of dismissal. 02. Sans details, the case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as Lecturer in Physics in Sambalpur University (in short, “University”) during September, 1979. He was promoted to the post of Reader in the year 1993. There was no blemish in his service career. While the matter stood thus, Miss Alekhika Pani was appointed as Junior Research Fellow on 14.8.2002 in the Department of Physics by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Miss Pani was not sincere. She was cautioned time and again to be sincere with her research work. As a Post Graduate student for the academic session 1998-2000, she had the acquaintance with him. She had cooperated and participated in the research work. As a project leader, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to see, remind, reprimand the persons those who were working in the project in order to have a good reputation of the project work. She submitted her resignation on 30.9.2002, but the same was not accepted with a hope that she will improve. All the efforts made by the petitioner ended in a fiasco. Finally she submitted her resignation on 24.2.2003, which was accepted on 28.2.2003. 03. While the matter stood thus, Mr. J.M. Pani of Sambalpur sent a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University with regard to the sexual harassment of his daughter by the petitioner. The petitioner received a letter on 7.4.2003 from Professor P.K. Mohapatra, Convenor of Enquiry Committee to remain present on 10.4.2003 at 9.30 a.m. in the Syndicate Hall of the University in order to respond to the charges made against him by Mr. J.M. Pani. The complainant alleged that his daughter, Miss Alekhika Pani, enrolled as a research scholar under the petitioner in a project namely, “Studies in Nuclear Reaction”. She never thought that her career would come to an abrupt end for no fault of her. She had a brilliant academic record in Physics and great enthusiasm in fundament research. Her ordeal started after joining the project. She never thought that her career would come to an abrupt end for no fault of her. She had a brilliant academic record in Physics and great enthusiasm in fundament research. Her ordeal started after joining the project. The petitioner as a guide talked with regard to unrelated work of the research with his daughter, who was making amorous advances in talks and gestures. He used to comment about her dress and look. His lasciviousness and mischief was visible. His lewd remarks and lecherous looks became a routine event. A national symposium on nuclear physics was to be held in Chennai from 26th December to 30th December, 2002. Around second week of December, 2002, his daughter registered for the said national symposium as asked by her guide. Days before the event, she was told that her railway ticket and accommodation had been taken care of. The petitioner told her that they would stay together. She was shocked. She had not gone to Chennai. Thereafter the petitioner became very irritable and uncooperative with his daughter. He started troubling her. He made a second effort in February, 2003 when her “Project Definition” was to be done at IUC/DAEI, Calcutta Centre. Just two days before the event, i.e., 16th February, 2003, she was informed about the programme and told that they would stay together, as there was no time for making arrangements for accommodation. His daughter vehemently protested. The petitioner told her that to earn a Ph.D. degree, she had to bear all this. If she was unwilling and tried to divulge anything, she will be ruined. The petitioner warned his daughter of the consequences of going against him. He often talked of his links with Chancellor’s Office and Minister of Higher Education. The facts had been narrated by his daughter to him. He made the complaint on 26.3.2003 before the Vice-Chancellor. 04. Pursuant to the letter dated 7.4.2003, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. P.K. Mohapatra. Three committee members, namely, Ms. Basanti Biswal (Deptt. of Life Science), Ms. Pramila Mishra (Deptt. of Chemistry) and Ms. Sabita Tripathy (Deptt. of English) were junior to him. The petitioner submitted his reply. 04. Pursuant to the letter dated 7.4.2003, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. P.K. Mohapatra. Three committee members, namely, Ms. Basanti Biswal (Deptt. of Life Science), Ms. Pramila Mishra (Deptt. of Chemistry) and Ms. Sabita Tripathy (Deptt. of English) were junior to him. The petitioner submitted his reply. He received a letter dated 12.4.2003 to appear before the committee on 15.4.2003 at 9.30 a.m. and requested that the persons name in the said letter to appear before the committee in the Office of the Registrar of the University. Enquiry was not completed. On 16.4.2003, some of the students appeared before the committee. They stated that this was an effort to tarnish the image of the petitioner at the behest of some of the interested persons having ill intention and motive. The committee submitted the report to the Vice-Chancellor. After receipt of the report, the Vice-Chancellor convened the Syndicate meeting on 19.4.2003. On 19.4.2003, the matter was discussed in the Syndicate. The Syndicate considered the report of the Enquiry Committee and resolved to place the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect. By order dated 19.4.2003, he was placed under suspension pending framing of charges. Thereafter the charges were framed against him. The same was placed before the Syndicate for approval. The Syndicate after deliberations as per resolution dated 12.5.03 approved the charges and resolved to appoint a retired High Court Judge/retired District Judge as Enquiring Officer as per the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (in short, “the Rules, 1962”). Charges were served upon him on 14.5.2003. He was called upon to file reply within thirty days. He sent a letter to the Registrar of the University on 12.6.03 to supply the documents enabling him to submit his explanation. On 6.8.03, the Registrar of the University sent a letter indicating that no other copies of the relevant documents in support of the complaint petition dated 26.03.03 was submitted except the copy which was supplied to him along with the charge sheet. He was directed to inspect the document with prior permission of the Enquiry Officer on the date, time and place fixed for such inspection. The Registrar refused to supply the documents. A copy of the preliminary report was not furnished to him. He was prevented to submit explanation. He was directed to inspect the document with prior permission of the Enquiry Officer on the date, time and place fixed for such inspection. The Registrar refused to supply the documents. A copy of the preliminary report was not furnished to him. He was prevented to submit explanation. Again he made a representation on 5.10.03 requesting the Registrar of the University to supply the documents enabling him to submit his reply. Felt aggrieved, he filed appeal before the Chancellor for supply of documents, payment of subsistence allowance and to revoke the order of suspension. The same was pending consideration. While the matter stood thus, he received a letter from the Marshalling Officer to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 12.1.04 in the University Guest House. He pointed out the Vice-Chancellor that he had not been given adequate opportunity to file his reply to the charges for non-supply of documents. On 12.1.04, he received a letter from the Enquiry Officer that he did not appear on 12.1.04. The proceeding was adjourned to 21.1.04. On 13.1.04, he was intimated about the appointment of Mr. G.R. Dubey, a retired District Judge as Enquiring Officer pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate. On 21.1.04, he requested the Enquiry Officer to supply the proceedings of the hearing with copies of day to day order sheet. The Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to file his written statement by 31.1.04. He filed list of documents/witnesses. The appointment of Enquiry Officer was illegal. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and closed the same on 30.3.04. The enquiry was held in an undue haste. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report to the Registrar of the University. The same was placed before the Syndicate on 24.4.04. The Syndicate resolved to accept the report of the Enquiry Officer and take action as per the statutory provision. A copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to him before issuing 2nd show cause notice. The Enquiry Officer had no role to suggest imposition of penalty on the delinquent officer. The resolution of the Syndicate is a non-application of mind. The finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer is perverse. 05. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating that Mr. The Enquiry Officer had no role to suggest imposition of penalty on the delinquent officer. The resolution of the Syndicate is a non-application of mind. The finding rendered by the Enquiry Officer is perverse. 05. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties stating that Mr. J.M. Pani of Sambalpur lodged a written complaint on 26.3.03 before the Vice-Chancellor of the University making allegations of sexual harassment by the petitioner to his daughter Miss Alekhika Pani, Junior Research Fellow working under the petitioner. A fact finding enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry Committee presided over by Professor P.K.Mohapatra. The petitioner was placed under suspension by office order dated 19.4.2003 vide Annexure-3. The report of the Enquiry Committee was considered by the Syndicate. The Syndicate on 12.5.2003 resolved and approved the charges against the petitioner. The Registrar of the University issued the charges to the petitioner on 14.5.2003. The petitioner received the same on 19.5.2003. The departmental proceeding was initiated under Statute-299 read with Rule 15 of the Rules, 1962. Mr. G.R. Dubey, a retired District Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer as per the notification dated 13.1.2004. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.4.2004 to the Vice-Chancellor. The same was placed before the Syndicate on 24.4.2004. The Syndicate accepted the recommendation of the Enquiry Officer and resolved to issue show cause notice of dismissal of the petitioner. Accordingly, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. 06. An additional affidavit filed by the petitioner controverting the averments made in the counter affidavit. 07. Heard Mr. Aswini Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. D.K. Panda and Mr. Amit Mishra, learned Advocates for the petitioner. None appeared for the opposite parties. 08. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submitted that charges are framed against the petitioner before forming an opinion to hold an enquiry. Initiation of disciplinary proceeding and framing of charges are two distinct and separate acts. Approval of charges framed on the basis of enquiry report of the complaints committee by the Syndicate is in contravention of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 SC 3011 . The disciplinary proceeding and the show-cause notice issued to him are illegal and violation of the Rules, 1962. The disciplinary proceeding and the show-cause notice issued to him are illegal and violation of the Rules, 1962. The charges are framed on the basis of non-existing documents. The same are approved by a non-speaking order. The charges are vague and indefinite. The unsigned and incomplete charge-sheet was communicated by the Registrar. The Enquiry Officer was appointed simultaneously with the approval of the charges. Appointment of Enquiry Officer along with framing of charges is pre-mature. Before he filed his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority appointed the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer was appointed due to acceptance of hospitality and conveyance of the University. The examination-inchief was not conducted in his presence. The cross-examination was conducted without supplying the oral evidences recorded ex-parte in the examination-in-chief. The detailed order-sheet was not supplied to him. The charges were not proved. The finding of the Enquiry Officer is perverse. The proposed order of dismissal was passed without application of mind before furnishing a copy of the enquiry report. He requested the disciplinary authority to supply the documents basing upon which charges have been framed. But the same was refused by the Vice-Chancellor. A copy of the enquiry report was not furnished before issuing 2nd show-cause notice and as such there was no opportunity to assail the report. To buttress the submission, learned Senior Advocate placed reliance to the decisions of the apex Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1986 SC 2118 , Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. vs. B. Karunakar, etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074 , Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 SC 3011 , State of Punjab vs. V.K. Khanna and others, AIR 2001 SC 343 , State of U.P. and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131 , Medha Kotwal Lele and others vs. U.O.I. and others, AIR 2013 SC 93 and this Court in the case of Jagannath Mohapatra vs. Utkal University, Vol.47 (1979) C.L.T.-5. 09. Law regarding quashment of disciplinary proceeding is well known. In Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906, the apex Court held that the reason by ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. 09. Law regarding quashment of disciplinary proceeding is well known. In Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906, the apex Court held that the reason by ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not given rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed that the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause or charge-sheet. 10. On the anvil of the decision cited supra, the instant case may be examined. The petitioner was a Reader in Physics. Miss Alekhika Pani, Junior Research Fellow in the P.G. Department of Physics in the University, was working under the petitioner. Mr. J.M. Pani, father of Miss Pani, sent a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 26.3.2003 making allegations of sexual harassment by the petitioner to his daughter. His daughter narrated the facts stated supra, whereafter he made the complaint. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by a committee headed by Professor P.K. Mohapatra and along with five others. There were four women members in the committee. Three members were from other P.G. Departments. The committee recorded the statement of the petitioner as well as Miss Pani. The committee found that there was a prima facie case, which required initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The preliminary report was placed before the Syndicate on 19.4.2003. The Syndicate accepted the report. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension. The committee recorded the statement of the petitioner as well as Miss Pani. The committee found that there was a prima facie case, which required initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The preliminary report was placed before the Syndicate on 19.4.2003. The Syndicate accepted the report. Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension. The Syndicate in its meeting on 12.5.2003 resolved and approved the charges against the petitioner vide Annexure-5. The Registrar issued the chargesheet vide Annexure-6 to the petitioner on 14.5.2003. The petitioner received the same on 19.5.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter on 12.6.2003, vide Annexure-7, to the Registrar of the University to supply the documents. The Registrar of the University sent a letter on 6.8.2003 vide Annexure-8 to the petitioner stating that the documents had been supplied to him. He was also permitted to inspect the documents with prior permission of the Enquiry Officer on the date and time. Other documents were not supplied on the ground that the same did not pertain to framing of charges. He had not submitted his written statement of defence. He engaged a battery of lawyers. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report to the Vice-Chancellor of the University on 12.4.2004 in a sealed cover. The same was placed before the Syndicate on 24.4.2004. The Syndicate accepted the recommendation of the report of the Enquiry Officer and resolved to issue show-cause notice of dismissal to the petitioner. The 2nd show-cause notice of punishment was issued to him on 24.4.2004 as well as copy of the enquiry report and decision of the Syndicate. 11. In Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs. The Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1854 , the Constitution Bench of the apex Court held that a preliminary enquiry is usually held to determine whether a prima facie case for a formal departmental enquiry is made out, and it is very necessary that the two should not be confused. It further held that when a preliminary enquiry is held in the case of temporary employee or a government servant holding a higher rank temporarily it must not be confused with the regular departmental enquiry (which usually follows such a preliminary enquiry) when the government decides to frame charges and get a departmental enquiry made in order that one of the three major punishments already indicated may be inflicted on the government servant. It further held that such a preliminary enquiry may even be held ex parte, though usually for the sake of fairness, explanation is taken from the servant concerned even at such an enquiry. 12. The statement of the petitioner as well as Miss Pani was recorded by the committee. The committee recorded its finding and submitted the report. Charges were approved by the Syndicate of the University. The charges are clear and unambiguous. The petitioner participated in the enquiry without any demur or protest. A battery of lawyers appeared for him. Thus, it is too late on the day to contend that the Enquiry Officer was biased, merely because the report of the Enquiry Officer was not palatable to the petitioner. There is no allegation that the petitioner was not afforded the fullest opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner does not show how he was prejudiced. 13. A girl in the tradition bound non-permissive society of India would be extremely reluctant to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity had ever occurred. But in the instant case, Miss Pani narrated the entire episode to her father. The father of a girl in the same logic would be extremely reluctant to admit that any such instance had happened to his daughter. 14. In his inimitable style, Justice Krishna Iyer in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination & another v. Ramjee, AIR 1977 SC 965 proclaimed that “natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decisionmaker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt—that is the conscience of the matter”. 15. The contention that Miss Pani was not subject to crossexamination by the petitioner is difficult to fathom. Some would be adding salt to the injury. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt—that is the conscience of the matter”. 15. The contention that Miss Pani was not subject to crossexamination by the petitioner is difficult to fathom. Some would be adding salt to the injury. In Hira Nath Mishra and others vs. The Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and another, AIR 1973 SC 1260 , the appellants were second year students of the college and lived in a Hostel attached to the college. There was another Hostel for girl students. On the night between 10th and 11th June, 1872 some male students of the college were found sitting on the compound wall of the girls Hostel. Later they entered into the compound and were seen walking without clothes on them. They went near the windows of the rooms of some of the girls and tried to pull the hand of one of the girls. Some five of these boys then climbed up along the drain pipes to the terrace of the girls Hostel where a few girls were doing their studies. One seeing them the girls raised an alarm following which the students ran away. The girls recognized four out of these male students. The complaint was received by the Principal of the College from 36 girl students residing in the Girls Hostel alleging the above facts. The Principal decided to hold an enquiry and entrusted the enquiry to three staffs. The four students were directed to remain present in the Principal’s room in connection with the enquiry on 15-6-1972 at 4.30 p.m. They attended the enquiry. The students were called one after other in the room and to each one of them the contents of the complaint were explained. A charge memo was served on them. They were directed to file their reply and appear before the Enquiry Committee. The students uniformally denied having trespassed into the girls Hostel. The statement of the girls had not been recorded in the presence of the appellants. After making necessary enquiry, the committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the three appellants and Upendra had taken part in the raid that night. They were guilty of gross misconduct. They recommended that they may be expelled from the college for a period of two calendar years and also from the Hostel. After making necessary enquiry, the committee came to the unanimous conclusion that the three appellants and Upendra had taken part in the raid that night. They were guilty of gross misconduct. They recommended that they may be expelled from the college for a period of two calendar years and also from the Hostel. Acting on the report, the Principal of the college expelled them from the college for two academic sessions and directed them to vacate the Hostel within 24 hours. They filed writ petition before the High Court. Their chief contention was that rules of natural justice had not been followed before the order was passed. The enquiry had been held behind their back; the witnesses who gave evidence against them were not examined in their presence, there was no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses with a view to test their veracity. The High Court held that rules of natural justice were not inflexible and that in the circumstances and the facts of the case, the requirements of natural justice had been satisfied. The matter went to the apex Court. The apex Court held that requirements of natural justice were fulfilled. 16. The logical sequitur of the analysis made in the preceeding paragraphs is that the petitioner was afforded fullest opportunity to defend his case. The enquiry was conducted in a free and fair manner. Allegation of bias and mala fide against the Enquiry Officer is a ruse. The charges levelled against the petitioner are clear and unambiguous. 17. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to quash the charge-sheet. 18. In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. (supra), the Constitution Bench of the apex Court held that when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the Inquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee’s right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Inquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. 19. That right is a part of the employee’s right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the Inquiry Officer’s report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. 19. While issuing notice, a Bench of this Court on 20th May, 2004 directed that no final decision shall be taken without leave of the Court pursuant to the Syndicate resolution dated 24.4.2004, Annexure-14. The disciplinary proceeding proceeded further in view of the interim order passed by this Court. There is no document on record that 2nd show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with copy of the enquiry report. 20. In State of Punjab (supra), the apex Court held that soon after the issuance of the charge-sheet, the Press reported a statement of the Chief Minister that a Judge of the High Court would look into the charges against the respondent. It further held that it is well settled in Service Jurisprudence that the concerned authority has to apply its mind upon receipt of reply to the charge-sheet or show-cause as the case may be, as to whether a further inquiry is called for. In the event upon deliberations and due considerations it is in the affirmative—the inquiry follows but not otherwise. As held above, the petitioner participated in the enquiry without any demur or protest. The decision is distinguishable on facts. 21. In Vishaka and others (supra), the apex Court laid down the guidelines and norms for due observance at all work places or other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. The decision is no help to the petitioner. 22. In Medha Kotwal Lele and others (supra), the apex Court issued further directions with regard to sexual harassment at work places. 23. In Jagannath Mohapatra (supra), this Court held that it would not be illegal to appoint the inquiring officer simultaneously with the framing of the charges and to direct the delinquent to submit his explanation on the charges to the inquiring officer so that he will directly deal with the same from that stage. Therefore, the appointment of the inquiring officer before the submission of the written statement of defence by the delinquent cannot be supported. Therefore, the appointment of the inquiring officer before the submission of the written statement of defence by the delinquent cannot be supported. As held above, the petitioner had participated in the enquiry. He has not shown any prejudice. 24. In State of U.P. and others (supra), the documents forming foundation of charge-sheet was not supplied to the delinquent. Despite the relentless efforts made by the delinquent to secure copies of the documents, which was ought to be relied upon, to prove the charges those were denied by the department. The apex Court held that the entire proceedings are vitiated. In Kashinath Dikshita (supra), copies of the documents were not supplied to the delinquent by the disciplinary authority. The apex Court held that order of dismissal was violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. But in the instance case, the documents had been supplied to the petitioner. Simultaneously, the petitioner had been directed to peruse the documents. 25. In the wake of aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with 2nd show-cause notice to the petitioner. Thereafter, the opposite parties shall proceed with the matter. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition disposed of.