Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 96 (ORI)

Keshaba Ch Panda v. Sambalpur University

2020-04-29

S.K.SAHOO, SANJU PANDA

body2020
JUDGMENT S. K. Sahoo, J. - In this writ appeal, the appellant Dr. Keshaba Chandra Panda seeks to set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5598 of 2004 in rejecting the prayer made by the appellant to quash the charges framed against him by the disciplinary authority on 14.05.2003 and further directing the respondents to furnish a copy of the enquiry report along with the 2nd show-cause notice to the appellant and then to proceed with proceeding. 2. The case of the appellant, in short, is that he was appointed as Lecturer in Physics in Sambalpur University (hereafter 'the University') during September 1979 and was promoted to the post of Reader in the year 1993. There was no blemish in his service career. The victim girl was appointed as Junior Research Fellow on 14.08.2002 in the Department of Physics by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. She was not sincere with her research work for which she was cautioned time and again. The victim as a Post-Graduate student for the academic session 1998-2000 had the acquaintance with the appellant. She also cooperated and participated in the research work. As a project leader, it was the duty of the appellant to see, remind, reprimand the fellows those who were working in the project in order to have a good reputation of the project work. The victim girl submitted her resignation on 30.09.2002 but the same was not accepted with a hope that she would improve but all the efforts made by the appellant ended in a fiasco. Finally when the victim submitted her resignation on 24.02.2003, the same was accepted on 28.02.2003. While the matter stood thus, the father of the victim girl made a complaint on 26.03.2003 before the Vice-Chancellor of the University with regard to the sexual harassment of his daughter by the appellant. The complainant alleged in the complaint that the victim enrolled herself as a research scholar under the appellant in a project namely, 'Studies in Nuclear Reaction' and 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 fundamental research but her ordeal started after joining the project work. She had a brilliant academic record in Physics and great enthusiasm in fundamental research but her ordeal started after joining the project work. The appellant as a guide talked with regard to unrelated work of the research with the victim and was making amorous advances in talks and gestures and used to comment about her dress and looks. His lasciviousness and mischief were visible and 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, the victim registered for the said national symposium as was asked by her guide. Days before the event, she was told that her railway ticket and accommodation had been taken care of. The appellant told her that they would stay together for which she was shocked and did not go to Chennai. Thereafter the appellant became very irritable and uncooperative with the victim and started troubling her. The appellant made a second effort in February 2003 when the victim's 'Project Definition' was to be done at IUC/DAEI, Calcutta Centre. Just two days before the event i.e. 16th February 2003, the victim was informed by the appellant about the programme and told that they would stay together as there was no time for making arrangements for separate accommodation. The victim vehemently protested to it but the appellant told her that to earn a Ph.D. degree, she had to bear all these and if she was unwilling and try to divulge anything, she would be ruined. The appellant warned the victim of the consequences of going against him and often talked of his links with Chancellor's Office and Minister of Higher Education. The appellant received a letter on 07.04.2003 from Professor P.K. Mohapatra, Convenor of Enquiry Committee to remain present on 10.04.2003 at 09.30 a.m. in the Syndicate Hall of the University in order to respond to the charges made against him by the father of the victim. Pursuant to such letter, the appellant appeared before the Enquiry Committee and submitted his reply. Pursuant to such letter, the appellant appeared before the Enquiry Committee and submitted his reply. Then he received another letter dated 12.04.2003 to appear before the Committee on 15.04.2003 at 09.30 a.m. The appellant submitted a written request before the Committee on 15.04.2003 to supply the recorded statements of all the persons examined by the Committee ex-parte at the first instance for preparing an effective defence and then to give his own statement. Enquiry was not completed on 15.04.2003. On 16.04.2003 some of the students appeared before the Committee and stated that it was an effort to tarnish the image of the appellant at the behest of some of the interested persons having ill intention and motive. The Committee submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor on 16.04.2003/17.04.2003. After receipt of the report, the Vice-Chancellor convened the Syndicate meeting on 19.04.2003 for discussion. The Syndicate considered the report of the Enquiry Committee and resolved to place the appellant under suspension with immediate effect and accordingly by order dated 19.04.2003, the appellant was placed under suspension pending framing of charges. The charges were framed against the appellant and it was placed before the Syndicate for approval. The Syndicate after due deliberations and as per resolution dated 12.05.03 approved the charges and resolved to appoint a retired High Court Judge/retired District Judge as Inquiring Officer as per the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (in short 1962 Rules'). Charges were served upon the appellant on 14.05.2003 and he was called upon to file his reply within thirty days. The appellant sent a letter to the Registrar of the University on 12.06.2003 to supply the documents at an early date enabling him to submit an effective explanation. On 06.08.2003 the Registrar of the University sent a letter to the appellant indicating that no other copies of any document in support of the complaint petition dated 26.03.2003 was submitted except the copy which had already been supplied to him along with the charge sheet. The appellant was asked to inspect the documents with prior permission of the Inquiring Officer on the date, time and place fixed for such inspection. It is the case of the appellant that the Registrar refused to supply the documents and a copy of the preliminary report was not furnished to him and that he was prevented to submit explanation. The appellant was asked to inspect the documents with prior permission of the Inquiring Officer on the date, time and place fixed for such inspection. It is the case of the appellant that the Registrar refused to supply the documents and a copy of the preliminary report was not furnished to him and that he was prevented to submit explanation. Again the appellant submitted a representation on 05.10.2003 requesting the Registrar of the University to supply the documents as per his letter dated 12.06.2003 enabling him to submit his reply. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Chancellor for supply of documents, payment of subsistence allowance and also to revoke the order of suspension which was kept pending for consideration. While the matter stood thus, the appellant received a letter from the Marshalling Officer to appear before the Inquiring Officer on 12.01.2004 in the University Guest House. The appellant pointed out to the Vice-Chancellor that he was not given adequate opportunity to file his reply to the charges for non-supply of documents. On 12.01.2004 the appellant received a letter from the Inquiring Officer about his non-appearance on that day and about the adjournment of the proceeding to 21.01.2004. On 13.01.2004 the appellant was intimated about the appointment of Mr. G.R. Dubey, a retired District Judge as Inquiring Officer pursuant to the resolution of the Syndicate. On 21.01.2004 the appellant requested the Inquiring Officer to supply the copies of day to day order sheet of the proceeding. The Inquiring Officer directed the appellant to file his written statement by 31.01.2004 and accordingly the appellant filed a list of documents/witnesses. According to the appellant, the appointment of Inquiring Officer was illegal. The Inquiring Officer was biased and conducted the inquiry with undue haste and closed the same on 30.03.2004. The Inquiring Officer submitted the report to the Registrar of the University which was placed before the Syndicate on 24.04.2004. The Syndicate resolved to accept the report of the Inquiring Officer and take action as per the statutory provision. A copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the appellant before issuing 2nd show cause notice on 24.04.2004. According to the appellant, the Inquiring Officer had no role to suggest imposition of penalty on the delinquent officer and the finding rendered by the Inquiring Officer is perverse and that the resolution of the Syndicate also suffers from non-application of mind. According to the appellant, the Inquiring Officer had no role to suggest imposition of penalty on the delinquent officer and the finding rendered by the Inquiring Officer is perverse and that the resolution of the Syndicate also suffers from non-application of mind. 3. The appellant preferred W.P.(C) No. 5598 of 2004 for quashing the show-cause notice dated 24.04.2004 and also to quash the charges framed against him on 14.05.2003. 4. Counter affidavit was filed by the University in the writ petition wherein it is stated that the father of the victim girl lodged a written complaint on 26.3.03 before the Vice-Chancellor of the University making allegations of sexual harassment against the appellant to the victim. A fact-finding enquiry was conducted by an Enquiry Committee presided over by Professor P.K. Mohapatra on 15.04.2003 and 16.04.2003 and a report was submitted to the effect that there was prima facie case against the appellant and accordingly, the Syndicate placed the appellant under suspension as per the office order dated 19.04.2003. The report of the Enquiry Committee was considered by the Syndicate and the Syndicate resolved and approved the charges against the appellant on 12.05.2003 and to appoint an Inquiring Officer as per 1962 Rules. The Registrar of the University issued the charges to the appellant on 14.05.2003 and the appellant received the same on 19.05.2003. The departmental proceeding was initiated under Statute 299 of the Odisha University First Statutes, 1990 read with Rule 15 of the 1962 Rules. Mr. G.R. Dubey, a retired District Judge was appointed as Inquiring Officer and on completion of the inquiry, the Inquiring Officer submitted his report to the Vice-Chancellor on 12.04.2004 in a sealed cover which was placed before the Syndicate on 24.04.2004 and the Syndicate accepted the recommendation of the Inquiring Officer and resolved to issue show cause notice of dismissal against the appellant and accordingly show cause notice was issued to the appellant. In the counter affidavit, it is specifically denied that there was any hastiness to close the proceeding rather the inquiry commenced on 09.12.2003 and it was closed on 30.03.2004. 5. An additional affidavit was filed by the appellant annexing some documents received through RTI Act. A specific stand taken in the writ petition was reiterated regarding non-supply of daily order sheet of the proceeding and copies of statements of some of the witnesses recorded during the inquiry on 19.03.2004 and 21.03.2004. 6. 5. An additional affidavit was filed by the appellant annexing some documents received through RTI Act. A specific stand taken in the writ petition was reiterated regarding non-supply of daily order sheet of the proceeding and copies of statements of some of the witnesses recorded during the inquiry on 19.03.2004 and 21.03.2004. 6. The learned Single Judge considering the submissions made by the respective sides and placing reliance on a number of citations has been pleased to hold that the charges are clear and unambiguous and that the appellant participated in the inquiry without any demur or protest and that a battery of lawyers appeared for him and therefore, merely because the Inquiring Officer was not palatable to the appellant, it cannot be said that he was biased. It was further held that the appellant was afforded fullest opportunity to defend his case and that the inquiry was conducted in a free and fair manner and that the allegation of bias and malafide against the Inquiring Officer is a ruse and the learned Judge was not inclined to quash the charges. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to furnish a copy of the inquiry report along with 2nd show-cause notice to the appellant and thereafter the opposite parties were directed to proceed with the matter. 7. Challenging the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, Mr. Asok Mohanty, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant emphatically contended that the complaint dated 26.03.2003 made against the appellant was treated as the complaint of sexual harassment at the work place and as per the declared law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and others -Vrs.- State of Rajasthan and others, (1997) 6 SCC 241 , a Complaints Committee was constituted by adhering to the guidelines for conducting inquiry into such complaint and the enquiry report of the said Complaints Committee was placed before the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Syndicate and the Syndicate after due deliberation passed final order of suspension as penalty. Thereafter there was no scope for holding any further inquiry. Thereafter there was no scope for holding any further inquiry. Elaborating his submissions, he contended that it was a complaint of sexual harassment at work place and the Complaints Committee was appointed to conduct inquiry under Rule 15(4) of the 1962 Rules and the report of the Complaints Committee was treated as inquiry report under Rule 15(7) of the said Rules and the Syndicate deliberated on such inquiry report and passed the final order dated 19.04.2003 imposing suspension as penalty upon the appellant as per the mandates of Vishaka law. The commencement of a second inquiry thereafter by framing of charges on the basis of inquiry report of Complaints Committee is wholly unwarranted. Vishaka provides for one inquiry and there is no provision for the Disciplinary Authority to completely set aside the previous inquiry. It was further argued that the charges were framed against the appellant when there was a decision of the Disciplinary Authority/Syndicate not to hold another enquiry into the self-same allegations on 19.04.2003. Such a decision was taken by the Disciplinary Authority at the conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding and after imposing suspension as penalty against the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority acts as a quasi-judicial authority and once it has arrived at such a decision, it cannot be varied as per the will of the Disciplinary Authority itself. The Disciplinary Authority has not found that its decision dated 19.04.2003 was contrary to the provisions of law or unreasonable. It was argued that in spite of order of suspension as penalty for the alleged misdemeanor after due process, the charges framed on 14.05.2003 basing on the same cause of action is hit under the principle of double jeopardy. It is further argued that the learned Single Judge was not justified in not quashing the charges as it intended to penalize the appellant for the second time in respect of the self-same misdemeanor/misconduct. According to the learned counsel, even though this aspect was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, yet no finding was given on it in the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that the appellant was not supplied with the documents along with the inquiry report which he had sought for. According to the learned counsel, even though this aspect was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, yet no finding was given on it in the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that the appellant was not supplied with the documents along with the inquiry report which he had sought for. According to the learned counsel, the initiation of the proceeding for appointment of Inquiring Officer before the receipt of the explanation, the biasness of Inquiring Officer, non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report before issue of show-cause notice, not giving a chance to the appellant to submit a written statement of defence constitute serious prejudice and it reflects malafideness for which the appellant availed the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but the points raised were not properly adjudicated and the vital points raised remained unanswered for which the impugned judgment and order is to be set aside. 8. Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, learned counsel for the University, however, contended that the Complaints Committee as per Vishaka (supra) judgment was constituted on receipt of the complaint dated 26.03.2003 from the father of the victim addressed to the Vice-Chancellor which consisted of six members out of which there were four women members. The Committee was constituted for the purpose of collection of facts in regard to the conduct and work of the appellant. The Committee during the fact-finding preliminary enquiry held on 15.04.2003 and 16.04.2003 called upon twelve persons including the victim and the appellant and recorded their statements and a report was submitted to the effect that there was prima facie case against the appellant and basing on such report and the resolution of the Syndicate, the appellant was placed under suspension. The departmental proceeding was initiated under Statute 299 of the Odisha Universities First Statutes, 1990 read with Rule 15 of the 1962 Rules and since the Syndicate resolved to frame charges against the appellant and to proceed in accordance with Rule 15 of the 1962 Rules and approved the charges and the proceeding continued accordingly, it cannot be said that by framing of charges on the basis complaint and fact-finding enquiry report, there is commencement of any second inquiry and that the charges famed is hit under the principle of double jeopardy. He argued that as per Vishaka, whether a particular conduct amounts to misconduct in employment as defined by the relevant service rules is to be first enquired into by the Complaints Committee and basing on the report submitted by such Committee, appropriate disciplinary action can be initiated by the employer in accordance with such service rules. He emphasised that a fact-finding enquiry report submitted by an Complaints Committee presided over by Professor P.K. Mohapatra cannot be deemed to be an inquiry report under Rule 15(7) of the 1962 Rules inasmuch as such a report can be prepared only after the framing of definite charges by the disciplinary authority, filing of written statement of defence by the Government servant, appointing an enquiring officer by the disciplinary authority and examination of witnesses before the inquiring authority. Since the fact-finding enquiry report was submitted by the Complaints Committee without framing of definite charges as per Rule 15(2) of the 1962 Rules, it cannot be treated as an inquiry report contemplated under Rule 15(7) of the said Rules. He argued that the points taken in the writ appeal and raised during the argument that after the enquiry report of Complaints Committee and placing the appellant under suspension by the Syndicate, there is commencement of any second inquiry and that the charges famed is hit under the principle of double jeopardy were never raised in the writ petition or in the additional affidavit filed by the appellant in the writ petition and it was also not raised during argument of the writ petition and therefore, the learned Single Judge has not dealt with it in the impugned judgment. He submitted that the other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have been dealt with in the impugned judgment and there is no perversity in it and therefore, the writ appeal should be dismissed. 9. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. However, before we proceed to deal with the rival contentions, we consider it necessary to take a quick glance to the Vishaka judgment inasmuch as the main contentions of the parties revolve around this judgment as well as Rule 15 of the 1962 Rules. However, before we proceed to deal with the rival contentions, we consider it necessary to take a quick glance to the Vishaka judgment inasmuch as the main contentions of the parties revolve around this judgment as well as Rule 15 of the 1962 Rules. A three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by a rather innovative judicial law making process issued certain guidelines in Vishaka judgment which was delivered on 13.08.1997. The Hon'ble Court in the absence of enacted law, to provide for the effective enforcement of the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment and abuse, more particularly against sexual harassment at work places, 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 Hon'ble Court in exercise of the power available under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of the fundamental rights formulated it and it was further emphasised that the same would be treated as the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. Under the heading of criminal procedure, it is observed, inter alia, that where the conduct of the perpetrator amounts to a specific offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law by making a complaint with the appropriate authority. Under the heading of disciplinary action, it is observed that where such conduct amounts to misconduct in employment as defined by the relevant service rules, appropriate disciplinary action should be initiated by the employer in accordance with those rules. Under the heading of complaint mechanism, it is observed that whether or not such conduct constitutes an offence under law or a breach of the service rules, an appropriate complaint mechanism should be created in the employer's organization for redress of the complaint made by the victim. Such complaint mechanism should ensure time bound treatment of complaints. Similarly under the heading of Complaints Committee, it is observed that the said complaint mechanism, should be adequate to provide, where necessary, a Complaints Committee, a special counselor or other support service, including the maintenance of confidentiality and the Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its member should be women. Similarly under the heading of Complaints Committee, it is observed that the said complaint mechanism, should be adequate to provide, where necessary, a Complaints Committee, a special counselor or other support service, including the maintenance of confidentiality and the Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its member should be women. Further, to prevent the possibility of any undue pressure or influence from senior levels, such Complaints Committee should involve a third party, either NGO or other body who is familiar with the issue of sexual harassment. The Complaints Committee was directed to make an annual report to the Government department concerned of the complaints and action taken by them and the employers and person in charge shall also report on the compliance with the aforesaid guidelines including on the reports of the Complaints Committee to the Government department. It was further directed that the guidelines and norms should be strictly observed in all the work places for the preservation and enforcement of the right to gender equality of the working women and such directions were held to be binding and enforceable in law until suitable legislation is enacted to occupy the field. In the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council -Vrs.- A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759 which was decided on 20.01.1999, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while analysing the definition of 'sexual harassment' as suggested in the case of Vishaka judgment, held as follows:- "26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment at the place of work, results in violation of the fundamental right to gender equality and the right to life and liberty - the two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. As early as in 1993 at the ILO Seminar held at Manila, it was recognized that sexual harassment of woman at the workplace was a form of 'gender discrimination against woman'. In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. In our opinion, the contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated and that there can be no compromise with such violations, admits of no debate. The message of international instruments such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman, 1979 ("CEDAW") and the Beijing Declaration which directs all State parties to take appropriate measures to prevent discrimination of all forms against women beside taking steps to protect the honour and dignity of women is loud and clear. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights contains several provisions particularly important for woman. Article 7 recognises her right to fair conditions of work and reflects that women shall not be subjected to sexual harassment at the place of work which may vitiate working environment. These international instruments cast an obligation on the Indian State to gender sensitise its laws and the Courts are under an obligation to see that the message of the international instruments is not allowed to be drowned...... 29......In a case involving charge of sexual harassment or attempt to sexually molest, the courts are required to examine the broader probabilities of a case and not get swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities or dictionary meaning of the expression "molestation". They must examine the entire material to determine the genuineness of the complaint. The statement of the victim must be appreciated in the background of the entire case. Where the evidence of the victim inspires confidence, as is the position in the instant case, the courts are obliged to rely on it. Such cases are required to be dealt with great sensitivity. Sympathy in such cases in favour of the superior officer is wholly misplaced and mercy has no relevance....." The Vishaka judgment was again brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the nature of public interest litigation in the case of Medha Kotwal Lele and Ors. Such cases are required to be dealt with great sensitivity. Sympathy in such cases in favour of the superior officer is wholly misplaced and mercy has no relevance....." The Vishaka judgment was again brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the nature of public interest litigation in the case of Medha Kotwal Lele and Ors. -Vrs.- Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297 raising principally the grievance that women continue to be victims of sexual harassment at workplaces and the guidelines in Vishaka are followed in breach in substance and spirit by State functionaries and all other concerned and the women workers are subjected to harassment through legal and extra legal methods and they are made to suffer insult and indignity, after hearing the learned Attorney General and learned Counsel for the States, the Hon'ble Court on 26.04.2004 directed as follows: "Complaints Committee as envisaged by the Supreme Court in its judgment in Vishaka's case will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purposes of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called 'CCS Rules') and the report of the complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under the CCS Rules. Thereafter the disciplinary authority will act on the report in accordance with the rules." The Hon'ble Court while disposing of the matter in Medha Kotwal Lele (supra) finally on 19.10.2012, held as follows:- "16. In what we have discussed above, we are of the considered view that guidelines in Vishaka should not remain symbolic and the following further directions are necessary until legislative enactment on the subject is in place. (i) The States and Union Territories which have not yet carried out adequate and appropriate amendments in their respective Civil Services Conduct Rules (By whatever name these Rules are called) shall do so within two months from today by providing that the report of the Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report in a disciplinary action under such Civil Services Conduct Rules. In other words, the disciplinary authority shall treat the report/findings etc. of the Complaints Committee as the findings in a disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent employee and shall act on such report accordingly. In other words, the disciplinary authority shall treat the report/findings etc. of the Complaints Committee as the findings in a disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent employee and shall act on such report accordingly. The findings and the report of the Complaints Committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or inquiry leading to a disciplinary action but shall be treated as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent." Therefore, in the path breaking Vishaka judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made it clear that the Complaints Committee created in the employer's organization after receipt of complaint of sexual harassment has to enquire into the matter and prepare a report indicating therein as to whether the conduct of the alleged perpetrator employee constitutes an offence under law or a breach of service rules. If as per the report submitted, the conduct amounts to a specific offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, the employer shall initiate appropriate action against the employee in accordance with law by making a complaint with the appropriate authority. Similarly if as per the report submitted, the conduct of the employee amounts to misconduct in employment as defined by the relevant service rules, appropriate disciplinary action shall be initiated by the employer in accordance with such rules. In view of the interim order dated 26.04.2004 passed in the case of Medha Kotwal Lele (supra), the Complaints Committee as per Vishaka case will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purposes of CCS Rules and the report of the Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under such Rules and the disciplinary authority will act on the report in accordance with the Rules. The final order passed in the case of Medha Kotwal Lele (supra) made it clear that the disciplinary authority shall treat the report/findings etc. of the Complaints Committee as the findings in a disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent employee and shall act on such report accordingly. The findings and the report of the Complaints Committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or inquiry leading to a disciplinary action but shall be treated as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent. The findings and the report of the Complaints Committee shall not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or inquiry leading to a disciplinary action but shall be treated as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent. A comprehensive legislation was enacted by way of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereafter 2013 Act') keeping in view Vishaka judgment to provide for safe, secure and enabling environment to every woman, irrespective of her age or employment status free from all forms of sexual harassment which came into force on 09.12.2013. The notification in that respect is given herein below: MINISTRY OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 9th December, 2013 S.O. 3606(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (14 of 2013), the Central Government hereby appoints the 9th day of December, 2013 as the date on which the provisions of the said Act shall come into force. [F. No. 19-5/2013-WW] Dr. SHREERANJAN, Jt. Secy. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 was also framed to carry out the provisions of 2013 Act. 10. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find the following undisputed factual aspects from the entire scenario of the case: (i) The father of the victim girl lodged a written complaint on 26.03.2003 before the ViceChancellor of the University making allegations of sexual harassment against the appellant to the victim; (ii) A Complaints Committee was constituted for the purpose of collection of facts in regard to the conduct and work of the appellant which consisted of six members out of which there were four women members; (iii) The Complaints Committee during enquiry held on 15.04.2003 and 16.04.2003 called upon twelve persons including the victim and the appellant and recorded their statements; (iv) The Complaints Committee submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor to the effect that there was prima facie case against the appellant; (v) Basing on such report, the Vice-Chancellor convened the Syndicate meeting on 19.04.2003 for discussion. The Syndicate considered the report of the Enquiry Committee and resolved to place the appellant under suspension with immediate effect and accordingly by order dated 19.04.2003, the appellant was placed under suspension; (vi) The majority of Syndicate members also opined regarding initiation of departmental inquiry against the appellant; (vii) The Syndicate resolved and approved the charges against the appellant on 12.05.2003 and to appoint an Inquiring Officer as per 1962 Rules; (viii) Mr. G.R. Dubey, a retired District Judge was appointed as the Inquiring Officer vide Syndicate resolution dated 19.11.2003 who on completion of the inquiry submitted his report to the Vice-Chancellor on 12.04.2004 in a sealed cover; (ix) The sealed cover containing report of the Inquiring Officer was placed before the Syndicate on 24.04.2004 and the Syndicate accepted the findings and recommendations of the Inquiring Officer and resolved to issue show cause notice of dismissal against the appellant; (x) The show cause notice of dismissal was issued to the appellant on 24.04.2004 by the Registrar of the University. At this stage, it would be profitable to refer Statutes 299 and 301 of the Odisha Universities First Statutes, 1990. Statute 299 comes under Chapter VI which relates to Classification Control Discipline and Appeal and it states that Rules 12, 15 and 16 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 as amended from time to time and the Government clarification issued thereunder in the matter of suspension and for imposing major and minor penalties, shall apply mutatis mutandis to all employees. The words "mutatis mutandis" used in statute means that the application of provisions will be with necessary changes and it cannot be adopted as if it is to be read as it is. In the case of The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation -Vrs.- Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470 , it is held that the phrase "mutatis mutandis" implies that a provision contained in other part of the statute or other statutes would have application as it is with certain changes in points of detail. In the case of The Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation -Vrs.- Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470 , it is held that the phrase "mutatis mutandis" implies that a provision contained in other part of the statute or other statutes would have application as it is with certain changes in points of detail. Under Statute 301, it is mentioned that the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons be imposed on an employee i.e. (i) fine; (ii) censure; (iii) withholding of (a) increment, (b) promotion; (iv) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the University by negligence or breach of orders; (v) suspension; (vi) reduction to a lower service, grade or post or to a lower time-scale or to a lower stage in a time-scale; (vii) compulsory retirement; (viii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; (ix) dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification for future employment in the University. In the explanation to the said Statute, it is mentioned as which actions shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this Statute. Thus in the matter of suspension and for imposing major and minor penalties on an employee of the University as specified under Statute 301, Rules 12, 15 and 16 of the 1962 Rules are to be followed. 11. The question that now crops up for consideration is whether after the Complaints Committee submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor to the effect that there was prima facie case against the appellant and the Syndicate in its meeting on 19.04.2003 considered such report and resolved to place the appellant under suspension with immediate effect and accordingly, the appellant was placed under suspension by order dated 19.04.2003, is it permissible under law for the disciplinary authority to take recourse to Rule 15 of 1962 Rules virtually from the beginning by framing definite charges, inviting the appellant to submit written statement of defence, to appoint an enquiring officer and then the inquiring authority to inquire into the matter and prepare the inquiry report at the conclusion of inquiry as per sub-rule (7) of the said Rule. The answer would be an emphatic 'No'. The answer would be an emphatic 'No'. The reason is that as per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Complaints Committee constituted will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purposes of 1962 Rules and the report of the Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report as per sub-rule (7) of the Rule 15 and not a mere preliminary investigation or inquiry report leading to a disciplinary action. Such a report has to be treated as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the appellant. The Syndicate basing on such inquiry report and after due deliberation has passed the order dated 19.04.2003 imposing suspension as penalty upon the appellant which is as per the mandates of Vishaka law. Once the stage of 15(7) of 1962 Rules has reached on the submission of the inquiry report of the Complaints Committee, there is no question of reverting back the stages enumerated under sub-rules (1) to (6) of 1962 Rules. We are of the humble view that once the inquiry report of the Complaints Committee is prepared at the conclusion of inquiry, it is to be treated as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent and framing of definite charges in consonance with Rule 15(2) of 1962 Rules thereafter by the disciplinary authority amounts to commencement of second inquiry which is not permissible in law. Framing of definite charges by the disciplinary authority will be on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is to be held. Once the inquiry is completed by the Complaints Committee and inquiry report is prepared, the question of framing charges does not arise. Framing of definite charges by the disciplinary authority will be on the basis of the allegations on which the inquiry is to be held. Once the inquiry is completed by the Complaints Committee and inquiry report is prepared, the question of framing charges does not arise. Even though as per Vishaka judgment, whether a particular conduct amounts to misconduct in employment as defined by the relevant service rules is to be first enquired into by the Complaints Committee and basing on the report submitted by such Committee, appropriate disciplinary action can be initiated by the employer in accordance with such service rules but since as per Medha Kotwal Lele (supra) case, findings and the report of the Complaints Committee shall be treated as a finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent and disciplinary authority shall act on such report accordingly and in the case in hand, the Syndicate has acted on the report of the Complaints Committee and imposed penalty of suspension, no further inquiry is permissible. When the proceeding was dealt with right from the beginning as per guidelines framed in Vishaka's case which was the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and the directions were held to be binding and enforceable in law and the Hon'ble Court on 26.04.2004 directed in the case of Medha Kotwal Lele (supra) that Complaints Committee as envisaged in Vishaka's case will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purposes of CCS Rules and the report of the complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report under the CCS Rules and thereafter the disciplinary authority will act on the report in accordance with the rules, even though the show cause notice of dismissal has been issued to the appellant on 24.04.2004 (which was two days prior to the order dated 26.04.2004) by the Registrar of the University basing on the report submitted by the Inquiring Officer to the Vice-Chancellor on 12.04.2004 and thereby giving thirty days time to the appellant to submit his show cause on such notice and since the cause of action was still surviving, therefore, the proceeding has to be dealt as per the aforesaid order dated 26.04.2004. Even though the ground of commencement of second inquiry with the framing of charges on 14.05.2003 was not specifically taken in the writ petition and seems to have been taken in the writ appeal and canvassed during hearing of the case but since the point goes to the root of the matter relating to the jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority in framing the charges at that stage and commencing inquiry afresh after submission of inquiry report of the Complaints Committee, in the interest of justice, we cannot ignore the same. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the humble view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the charges framed against the appellant on 14.05.2003 and the show cause notice of dismissal issued to the appellant on 24.04.2004 by the Registrar of the University basing on the report submitted by the Inquiring Officer to the Vice-Chancellor on 12.04.2004 stand quashed. The writ appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge is hereby set aside. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. S. Panda, J. I agree.