JUDGMENT A.K. Rath, J. - This petition challenges the order dated 19.4.2003 passed by the Registrar, Sambalpur University vide Annexure-8, placing the petitioner under suspension, the complaint made by one Mr. J.M. Pani to the Vice-Chancellor, Sambalpur University vide Annexure-1 and the order of enquiry dated 31.3.2003 vide Annexure-9. 2. Shorn of details, the case of the petitioner was that he was appointed as Lecturer in Physics in Sambalpur University (in short, "University") in September, 1979. He was promoted to the post of Reader in the year 1993. There was no blemish in his service career. He made significant contributions towards the advancement of knowledge in Nuclear Physics. He had guided several junior research students. Miss Alekhika Pani was appointed as Junior Research Fellow on 14.8.2002 by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. She joined in the Post Graduate Department of Physics of the University as a Junior Research Fellow on 16.8.2002. Miss Pani was not sincere. She was cautioned time and again to be sincere with her research work. As a project leader, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to see, remind, reprimand the persons 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. 3. While the matter stood thus, he 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 of Sambalpur. 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. 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. 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, the petitioner told that her railway ticket and accommodation had been taken care of and they would stay together. She was shocked. She had not gone to Chennai. Thereafter the petitioner became very irritable and uncooperative with his daughter. The petitioner started troubling her. The petitioner 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 that to earn a Ph.D. degree, she had to bear all this and even 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. The petitioner 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 and requested the later to punish the guilty. 4. Pursuant to the letter dated 7.4.2003, the petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. P.K. Mohapatra along with five others. 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 juniors 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. 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. He received a letter dated 12.4.2003 to appear before the committee on 15.4.2003 at 9.30 a.m. 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 directed to convene 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. Thereafter by order dated 19.4.2003, he was placed under suspension pending framing of charges. According to him, the allegation made by Mr. J.M. Pani is false and frivolous. There was no unanimity in the decision of the Syndicate to place him under suspension. The decision of the Syndicate to place him under suspension is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as the members of the Enquiry Committee had been included to be the members of the Syndicate. The enquiry was conducted in a perfunctory manner. With this factual scenario, he filed the writ petition. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. The case of the opposite parties was that the complaint was made by Mr. J.M. Pani, father of Miss Alekhika Pani, a Junior Research Fellow to the Vice-Chancellor of the University against the petitioner. In order to find out the veracity of such complaint, the Vice-Chancellor constituted a committee to investigate into the matter to find out the prima facie case and submit the report. The committee conducted a preliminary enquiry in order to collect the facts on the basis of which allegations were made against the petitioner. The committee submitted the report. The same was placed before the Syndicate of the University. The Syndicate after detailed deliberation found that there is prima facie case against the petitioner and accordingly, he was placed under suspension pending enquiry by the Registrar of the University. During the preliminary enquiry, the statement of Miss Pani was recorded. She stated that she never worked as part time scholar with the petitioner before joining as Junior Research Fellow in the Department of Physics. During the preliminary enquiry, the statement of Miss Pani was recorded. She stated that she never worked as part time scholar with the petitioner before joining as Junior Research Fellow in the Department of Physics. The Vice-Chancellor of the University after receipt of the complaint from the father of Miss Pani constituted a committee consisting of six members where there were four women members. The four women members were members of the committee in view of the allegation raised by the Woman Research Fellow. These women members of the committee were from other P.G. Departments of the University. The Enquiry Committee recorded the statement of the petitioner. The committee recorded the statement of Miss Alekhika Pani. The same is as follows: "Miss Alekhika Pani paid Registration Fees for Seminar at Thirunelvelli from 26th to 30th December, 2002 and desired to travel by Sleeper Class with Miss Aliva Panda, a Co-Researcher, but Dr. Panda insisted her to travel by 2nd Class A/C to which she declined. Dr. Panda enquired about her accommodation and insisted her to stay with him. Alekhika applied for her accommodation "nearer to her guide". Dr. Panda corrected it as "with my guide" in his own handwriting. She has furnished the original copy of the application embodying the corrections made by Dr. Panda in his own handwriting. Dr. Panda again directed Alekhika to undertake a journey to defend the project at I.U.C.D.A.E.F., Kolkata. Alekhika booked her onward journey on 16.2.2003 and returned journey on 19.02.2003 in Sleeper Class. Dr. Panda insisted her to accompany him in 2nd Class A/C. He also asked her to be fresh herself in his room during her proposed stay at Kolkata till alternative arrangement is made for her accommodation. She could guess the malicious intention of Dr. Panda and cancelled her Tickets". The statement of Miss Pani was considered by the committee along with other facts. The committee found that there was prima facie case which required initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The preliminary report of the Enquiry Committee was placed before the Syndicate of the University on 19.04.2003 wherein out of ten members of the Syndicate, two members opined differently and therefore the majority view was accepted in view of Statutes 22 (3) of the Orissa Universities First Statute, 1990. The preliminary report of the Enquiry Committee was placed before the Syndicate of the University on 19.04.2003 wherein out of ten members of the Syndicate, two members opined differently and therefore the majority view was accepted in view of Statutes 22 (3) of the Orissa Universities First Statute, 1990. Since the decision of placing the petitioner under suspension and initiation of Departmental Enquiry was by the majority of the members of the Syndicate, the same is absolutely legal and justified. The preliminary enquiry was made for the purpose of collection of facts in regard to the conduct of work of an employee. The female members in Sl. Nos.4, 5 and 6 though junior to the petitioner had been drawn from the other P.G. Departments by the Vice-Chancellor because no other senior women members in other Departments are available. Preliminary enquiry was conducted only to collect the facts in order to find out about the prima facie case and the satisfaction of the authorities before initiation of the Departmental proceeding and the employee concerned had no right to be heard. The committee recorded the statement of the twelve persons. After completion of preliminary enquiry, the committee submitted the report which was placed before the Syndicate of the University for taking decision. The Syndicate in its resolution decided to suspend the petitioner from service pending departmental enquiry. The order of suspension pending enquiry is an administrative order and not a punishment. It is only one way of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the duties of the office or post held by him and to refrain the employee to perpetrate the alleged misconduct. The authorities after receipt of the complaint constituted a committee for the purpose of collection of facts in regard to the conduct and work of the employee and to determine about prima facie case and basing on the report of the committee and Syndicate resolution, the order of suspension had been passed. Statutes 299 of the Orissa Universities First Statutes, 1990 provides that the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (in short, "the Rules, 1962") as amended from time to time and the circulars issued by the Government thereunder in the matter of suspension and imposition of major and minor penalties shall apply mutatis mutandis to all University employees. Rule 12 of the Rules, 1962 provides to suspend the employee concerned, where continuance in office of the Govt. servant will be against the public interest. 6. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the stand taken by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit. 7. Heard Mr. Aswini Kumar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. D.K. Panda and Mr. Amit Mishra, learned Advocates for the petitioner and Mr. R.K. Dash, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. 8. Mr. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner argued with vehemence that the petitioner was an outstanding Reader in Physics. He made significant contributions towards the advancement of knowledge in Nuclear Physics. He published several research papers in the international as well as national journals. He attended several international conferences on Nuclear Physics. During 24 years of service, there was no blemish on his service career. The complaint was filed by an outsider. The same was fabricated and concocted one. Neither the complaint was received by any one of the University, nor the same bear the initials of the recipient or diary number. The original complaint was not placed before the Enquiry Committee. The original complaint was not available. No FIR was lodged for the loss of original complaint. The complainant was not produced in course of enquiry. There was major correction in the complaint vide Annexure-1 in replacing the words "my dress, my look" by "her dress and look". The action taken by the University was not bona fide. The allegations made in the complaint were false and frivolous. The complaint had not supported by any document. The allegations were vague. The victim had no brilliant academic record. During the period of six and half months of her fellowship, she voluntarily resigned thrice whenever she was made cautious about her insincerity in research. The complaint did not reveal that she had ever complained about the allegations to anyone of her co-workers or colleagues or her family members. The complaint was not filed within fifteen days from the date of the alleged incident. Delay had not been explained. The Vice-Chancellor of the University passed an order of enquiry on the basis of false complaint without recording any cogent reason for holding enquiry. There was no reasonable basis for the ViceChancellor to order an enquiry. No enquiry can be sustained on vague allegations. Delay had not been explained. The Vice-Chancellor of the University passed an order of enquiry on the basis of false complaint without recording any cogent reason for holding enquiry. There was no reasonable basis for the ViceChancellor to order an enquiry. No enquiry can be sustained on vague allegations. At the time of complaint, she was not working in the University. The law laid down in the case of Vishaka and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others , (1997) AIR SC 3011 by the apex Court has no application to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. The statements made in the name of a third party vide Annexure-1 as to what the alleged victim told him is hearsay. The complaint made in the name of one J.M. Pani apparently does not contain statements of the alleged victim herself on the conduct complained against and therefore totally fails in the subjective test. The same does not prima facie constitute misconduct of Sexual Harassment of Women (SHW). The uncontroverted allegations prima facie do not constitute misconduct of SHW of the petitioner. The order of enquiry was made without any jurisdiction. While directing an enquiry on the alleged misconduct of SHW by Complaints Committee, the Vice-Chancellor proceeded on the basis of the allegations and ordered an enquiry without recording his prima facie opinion on the misconduct and any reason for holding an enquiry by the Complaints Committee. He further submitted that Syndicate is the disciplinary authority of the petitioner entitled under Statute302(1) to impose any of the penalties specified in Statute-301. The Vice-Chancellor is the disciplinary authority of the petitioner under the provision of Statute-302(2) to impose minor penalties when the power is delegated by the Syndicate. Disciplinary proceeding against him for imposition of punishment specified in Statute-301 is to be governed by the provisions of Statute-302 and Statute-299 read with Statutory Rules 12, 15 and 16 when any of the misconducts enumerated in Statutes-247 and 248 is committed. There is no express provision in the Statutes that the disciplinary authority can delegate statutory power to the Vice-Chancellor. The statutory power of appointing Complaints Committee to conduct enquiry against the petitioner vested particularly in the disciplinary authority. The Vice-Chancellor cannot exercise such disciplinary jurisdiction. The Complaints Committee appointed by the ViceChancellor treated the hearsay, vague and false allegations contained in the complaint as charges against the petitioner in the enquiry. The statutory power of appointing Complaints Committee to conduct enquiry against the petitioner vested particularly in the disciplinary authority. The Vice-Chancellor cannot exercise such disciplinary jurisdiction. The Complaints Committee appointed by the ViceChancellor treated the hearsay, vague and false allegations contained in the complaint as charges against the petitioner in the enquiry. The University had not produced the complainant, J.M. Pani, in the presence of the petitioner nor the alleged victim before the Complaints Committee to substantiate the hearsay allegations. The Complaints Committee also did not record the statements of any witness in the presence of the petitioner nor afforded an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses. The depositions of the witnesses recorded and document admitted cannot constitute as accurate, authenticated and valid and could not be relied upon against him. The Complaints Committee finds that the allegations of sexual harassment by the petitioner to Miss Pani could not be substantiated by any evidence. The original enquiry report of the Complaints Committee is not available in the University office. The Complaints Committee had recorded perverse findings in its report of enquiry utilizing undisclosed oral and documentary evidences which are not valid. The enquiry report is vitiated. The Complaints Committee had been delegated power of enquiring authority in a case of SHW. But it had exercised the power and recorded findings extraneous to the original charge of SHW. The disciplinary authority deliberated on the report of the Complaints Committee and passed order vide its resolution dated 19.4.2003 under Annexure-11. The findings and report of the Complaints Committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or enquiry leading to a disciplinary action. Two members of the disciplinary authority had given their dissenting opinion. The order of suspension is a penalty. The order was passed on the basis of perverse and extraneous findings of the Complaints Committee. The order is a laconic one. The order was not passed in conformity with statutory requirement. The disciplinary authority had not considered the vague allegations made against the petitioner by a fictitious complaint and the undisclosed oral and documentary evidences taken during the course of enquiry by the Complaints Committee. The disciplinary authority had not furnished a copy of the enquiry report of the Complaints Committee to the petitioner to represent nor informed him in writing about the penalty proposed to be imposed on him to make representation. The disciplinary authority had not furnished a copy of the enquiry report of the Complaints Committee to the petitioner to represent nor informed him in writing about the penalty proposed to be imposed on him to make representation. The Syndicate revoked the order of interim suspension made against the petitioner vide Office order dated 21.7.11 subject to final decision on the status of interim period after the disposal of the cases pending before this Court. Accordingly, the petitioner resumed his duty on 25.7.11. It is apparent from Annexure-11 that the same does not contain the ground of "suspension pending framing of charges". The disciplinary authority had not passed the order vide Annexure-11 in accordance with the direction of the Government of Orissa. The order of interim suspension is made without a disciplinary proceeding. The order of interim suspension has a mala fide exercise of power. The order of suspension violates Articles 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. To buttress the submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the apex Court in the cases of Vishaka and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others , (1997) AIR SC 3011 and Medha Kotwal Lele and Others vs. U.O.I. and Others , (2013) AIR SC 93. 9. Per contra, Mr. Dash, learned Advocate for the opposite parties referred to different paragraphs of the counter affidavit and submitted that the order of suspension cannot be dubbed as illegal or mala fide. He further submitted that the allegations made by the complainant were serious. After receiving the preliminary report, the Syndicate passed the order placing the petitioner under suspension and accordingly, the Registrar of the University issued the order. 10. In Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs. The Union of India , (1964) AIR 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. 10. In Champaklal Chimanlal Shah vs. The Union of India , (1964) AIR 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. 11. 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. 12. During pendecy of the writ petition, order of suspension was revoked. The petitioner was reinstated in the service. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report to the Syndicate of the University. The Syndicate accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and proposed to issue 2nd show-cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report. In the absence of any arbitrary or mala fide exercise of power, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. Moreover by efflux of time, the writ application has become infructuous. 13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.