JUDGMENT : Ironically, a gender sensitization programme conducted by the 'Sree Narayana College, Chempazhanthy' has become the genesis of all these writ petitions, in which, interalia, allegations of sexual harassment are made against a faculty member by students. 2. I propose to dispose of all these matters together through this judgment because the facts and circumstances involved, as also the reliefs sought, are interdependent or entwined. 3. The petitioners in WP(C) No.26174/2021 and 28734/2021 (who will hereinafter be called 'Assistant Professors') as stated to have participated in an online programme called 'Veyil Pookkal', designed to sensitize the students on issues relating to gender justice and equality. 4. The College alleges that one of the speakers in the programme, a certain Smt. Swapna Gopinath, was an expelled teacher, who had promoted drinking among lady teachers through certain social media platforms. They say that this was a deleterious influence on the students, particularly the girls; and that she, along with the “Assistant Professors” and certain other faculty members, devised a nefarious scheme against the petitioner in WP(C) No.5450/2022 – Sri. T. Abhilash, by encouraging certain girl students to hurl baseless sexual harassment charges against him. 5. The College says that they had constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), under the provisions of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations“ for short); and that the said Committee has entered a finding against the complainants, thus exonerating Sri. T. Abhilash, consequently, recommending action for such vexatious and motivated action by the former. 6. The afore report is the proximate cause of all these litigations. 7. The “Assistant Professors” have approached this Court because they were placed under suspension, through the orders impugned in WP(C) Nos.26174/2021 and 28734/2021, on the imputation that they had persuaded the girl students to make frivolous complaints against Sri. T. Abhilash; that they had, under the aegis of the 'Veyil Pookkal' programme, created ‘division' among the students; and that they had positively responded to the Face Book post of the aforementioned Dr. Swapna Gopinath, in which she had ‘endorsed alcohol consumption and social drinking of female teachers'; thus that they had promoted debased moral standards, which is contrary to their responsibilities as teachers. 8. Swapna Gopinath, in which she had ‘endorsed alcohol consumption and social drinking of female teachers'; thus that they had promoted debased moral standards, which is contrary to their responsibilities as teachers. 8. The “Assistant Professors” contend that the orders of suspension are per se illegal, since they have been issued even before the ICC had submitted their final report; and thus that the imputations against them were premeditated and without any corroborative basis. 9. While so, as said above, the ICC settled their report on 19.10.2021 (hereinafter referred to as 'ICC Report'), exonerating Sri. T. Abhilash; and recommending action against complainants and the other faculty members, who may have been involved. 10. The girl students who made complainants against Sri. T.A. Abhilash have thus filed WP(C) Nos.28149/2021 and WP(C) No.23694/2021, seeking that the ‘ICC Report’ be quashed and the College be directed to release to them all their documents and certificates – including Conduct Certificates, without any endorsement of misdemeanour therein, alleging that these were denied to them solely on account of vicitimisation. 11. Finally, WP(C) No.5450/2022 has been filed by Sri. T. Abhilash against Ext.P5 therein, which is a proceedings of the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education finding him guilty of the complaints of sexual harassment, contending that the same is untenable, forensically incompetent and impermissible because the ICC had already exonerated him on 19.10.2021. 12. I have heard Dr. K.P. Sathisan, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri. K. Sudhin Kumar – learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No.5450/2022; Sri. P.C. Sasidharan and Smt. V.A. Mini – learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.28734/2021 and WP(C) No.23694/2021 respectively; Sri. Raghul Sudheesh – learned counsel appearing for one of the ‘Assistant Professors’ who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.26174/2021; Sri. C. Unnikrishnan – learned counsel appearing for other ‘Assistant Professor’ who is the petitioner in WP(C) No.28149/2021; Sri. Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University; Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair – learned counsel appearing for the erstwhile Principal of the College and Smt. Resmi Thomas -learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 13. Dr. K.P. Sathisan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala University; Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair – learned counsel appearing for the erstwhile Principal of the College and Smt. Resmi Thomas -learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 13. Dr. K.P. Sathisan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri. T. Abhilash – petitioner in WP(C) No.5450/2022, began with a preliminary objection that the Writ Petitions filed by the girl students against the ‘ICC Report’ are not maintainable because they had participated in its processes and that, instead of invoking their appellate remedies against the same, they had earlier chosen to move the Chancellor of the University to get the matter again investigated through an Inspector General of Police. He submitted that, after this, the students approached the Director of Collegiate Education, on the basis of which, Ext.P5 in WP(C) No.5450/2022 has been issued. He thus prayed that the Writ Petitions filed against the ‘ICC Report’ be dismissed. 14. I will deal with the afore contention of Dr. K.P. Sathisan shortly. However, before doing so, I must certainly advert to the most relevant facts compendiously. 15. As I have already recorded above, the controversy in question began with a gender sensitization program called ‘Veyil Pookkal’, allegedly conducted under the aegis of the College, subsequent to which, certain complaints were preferred by students against Sri. T. Abhilash, alleging sexual harassment. The College says that ‘Veyil Pookkal’ was not conducted with their permission, but that they had, in fact, objected to it, because the aforementioned Smt. Swapna Gopinath was one of the speakers and whose influence was deleterious to the students. On the contrary, the ‘Assistant Professors’, assert that ‘Veyil Pookkal’ was an online program, conducted with the permission of the College. 16. That being said, the singular objection of the College against ‘Veyil Pookkal’ was that Smt. Swapna Gopinath had earlier put up a post in a ‘Whatsapp’ group, allegedly encouraging drinking by women teachers; and therefore, that this amounts to moral depravity, influencing the students nocuously. 17. As far as the students are concerned, the College alleges that it is solely on account of the influence of the ‘Veyil Pookkal’ program that they were persuaded to file complaints against Sri. T. Abhilash; and thus that the final report of the ICC is irreproachable. 17. As far as the students are concerned, the College alleges that it is solely on account of the influence of the ‘Veyil Pookkal’ program that they were persuaded to file complaints against Sri. T. Abhilash; and thus that the final report of the ICC is irreproachable. On the afore basis, the College has suspended the two ‘Assistant Professors’, who are the petitioners in WP(C) No.28734/2021 and WP(C) No.26174/2021. 18. When I proceed to evaluate and examine the various facets of the aspects and issues involved, one thing is limpid that, in the orders of suspension of the teachers, the College does not say that they have participated in the ‘Veyil Pookkal’ program even after it was objected by them. They only say that the teachers had supported Smt. Swapna Gopinath in the past and had involved her in the said program, which created divisions within the students and spurred certain girl students to file complaints against Sri. T. Abhilash. 19. Be that as it may, the report of ICC is challenged by the students on various grounds, including that its constitution was contrary to the ‘Regulations’. Smt. V.A. Mini and Sri. C. Unnikrishnan, their learned counsel, were very vehement in their submissions that, since the ICC was headed by an Advocate, it falls foul of the prescriptions of the ‘Regulations’ and therefore, that, on that ground alone, it has to fail. As an alternative submission, the learned counsel submitted that the ICC was originally headed by Advocate Regina Maxypaul, who had participated in the processes until 4.10.2021, when she recused herself on account of personal inconvenience; but that instead of recommencing the enquiry, the College reconstituted the ICC through their order dated 8.10.2021 and that a new Advocate, by name Smt. Beena Lakshmi, was appointed, but who merely went along the other members and signed the ‘ICC Report’, which is evident from the fact that it was published within a period of 10 days, on 19.10.2021. They contend that since Smt. Beena Lakshmi did not participate in the ICC proceedings at any point of time until 08.10.2021, her concurrence to the findings therein, are mechanical and without thought; and hence that the whole process is vitiated. 20. In response, Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair – learned counsel appearing for the erstwhile Principal of the College and Sri. They contend that since Smt. Beena Lakshmi did not participate in the ICC proceedings at any point of time until 08.10.2021, her concurrence to the findings therein, are mechanical and without thought; and hence that the whole process is vitiated. 20. In response, Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair – learned counsel appearing for the erstwhile Principal of the College and Sri. Rajan Babu – learned Standing Counsel appearing for the College, submitted that, in fact, the ICC was originally constituted strictly as per the ‘Regulations’, with a senior faculty being its head; but that this was objected to by the students, which is evident from Ext.R3(d) produced along with the counter affidavit of the Principal in WP(C) No.23694/2021. They pointed out that the students had objected to the members of the ICC saying that they were all associated with the same Teachers’ Association in which Sri. T. Abhilash is also a member. They added that, it is, therefore, that the College issued Ext.R3(e), nominating Smt. Regina Maxypaul, Advocate, as the head of the ICC, which was accepted by the students, consequent to which, they participated in its processes. The learned counsel then explained that, subsequently, Smt. Regina Maxypaul issued Ext.R3(i) dated 4.10.2021, saying that she is unable to continue further, which led to the reconstitution of the Committee through Ext.R3(j) with effect from 8.10.2021, with Adv. Beena Lakshmi as its head. They asserted that, therefore, the College has done nothing wrong in having constituted the ICC and in having conducted the processes. 21. On hearing the learned counsel for the College and the erstwhile Principal as afore, I asked Sri. Thomas Abraham – learned Standing Counsel for the University, about his client’s view in this matter; and he submitted that, normally, the ICC ought to have been constituted strictly in terms of the ‘Regulations’, but that since the students did not agree to one of the faculty members being its head, the University felt that its reconstitution with Adv. Regina Maxypaul in such capacity was proper. However, as regards the second reconstitution on 8.10.2021, he conceded that, at that stage, the ICC ought to have commenced its processes; while the records would show that the new Committee continued for the next eight days and settled their report on 19.10.2021. Regina Maxypaul in such capacity was proper. However, as regards the second reconstitution on 8.10.2021, he conceded that, at that stage, the ICC ought to have commenced its processes; while the records would show that the new Committee continued for the next eight days and settled their report on 19.10.2021. He thus submitted that, if this Court is so inclined, he would not stand in the way of orders being issued for a fresh ICC being constituted and it being allowed to enquire into the allegations and complete its proceedings thereon, in terms of the statutory scheme. 22. The afore submissions, in the context of pleadings and materials on records, persuade me to an opinion against the ‘ICC Report’ for more reasons than one. For the first, as rightly argued by Smt. V.A. Mini and Sri. Unnikrishnan, its constitution was not as per the ‘Regulations’. However, there is also force in the explanation of Sri. M.S. Radhakrishnan Nair and Sri. Rajan Babu that Adv. Regina Maxypaul was included as its head solely on account of the request of the students, because they wanted an independent committee, without any person who was a member of the Teachers’ Association, of which Sri. Abhilash was also a member. 23. Therefore, even if the constitution of the committee at the first instance is countenanced, the fact that Adv. Regina Maxypaul left it on 4.10.2021, it being thus consequently reconstituted on 8.10.2021, creates great consternation for this Court because, instead of the ICC beginning its process again – particularly because its Head had not interacted with the witnesses at any time – it appears to have settled its report in less than ten or so days, on 19.10.2021, making the suspicion fortified that the new Head of the committee really did not have any exposure to the facts and evidence involved. When one views this from the prism of the allegations of the students that the ‘ICC Report’ is one issued without properly adverting to the evidence, certainly, I find force in the suggestion of Sri. Thomas Abraham, that a new ICC will have to be constituted and a report settled by it in terms of law. Of course, this committee will have to be as per the ‘Regulations’, whether the students agree to it or otherwise and will have to proceed as per the statutory mandate. 24. Thomas Abraham, that a new ICC will have to be constituted and a report settled by it in terms of law. Of course, this committee will have to be as per the ‘Regulations’, whether the students agree to it or otherwise and will have to proceed as per the statutory mandate. 24. That being said, the suspension of the ‘Assistant Professors’ cannot appeal to me because, the allegation against them is not that they had participated in a program objected to by the College, but solely that they had supported Smt. Swapna Gopinath, who is alleged to have put up certain ‘WhatsApp’ posts in the past, encouraging drinking among women Teachers. 25. Though I do not propose to enter into the merits of the afore allegations, prima facie, it is rather baffling that a moralistic and extremely patriarchal stand should be adopted by the College in holding that even a reference to drinking among lady teachers would cause deprivation of the moral standards of their students. As I have said above, since this Court does not propose to quash the Charge Memos issued against the ‘Assistant Professors’ at this stage, I do not propose to speak on this any further. 26. I am persuaded to the afore view also because, the order of suspension is dated 8.10.2021, in which, the issuing Authority records that the allegations against Sri. T. Abhilash are frivolous and false, though it is unreservedly admitted that the ‘ICC Report’ came only on 19.10.2021. Clearly, the action against the petitioners can be suspected to be premeditated, but this is not something that this Court feels appropriate to speak conclusively at this stage, because of the reasons already recorded above. 27. My observations above, therefore, would make it ineluctable that these Writ Petitions deserve to be disposed of quashing the orders of suspension of the ‘Assistant Professors’, but allowing the enquiry against them to go on; and further by setting aside the ‘ICC Report’, so that a fresh process can be completed. 28. As a corollary to my observations above, the findings against Sri. T. Abhilash in Ext.P5 in WP(C) No.5450/2022 is also premature, because the report of the ICC to be constituted will certainly have to be awaited by any Educational Authority, before guilt against him can be imputed or finalised. 28. As a corollary to my observations above, the findings against Sri. T. Abhilash in Ext.P5 in WP(C) No.5450/2022 is also premature, because the report of the ICC to be constituted will certainly have to be awaited by any Educational Authority, before guilt against him can be imputed or finalised. Resultantly, I dispose of these Writ Petitions in the following manner: (a) WP(C) Nos.23694/2021 and 28149/2021 are allowed, and Ext.P9 in the former and Ext.P4 in the latter are quashed; however, with a direction to the appropriate Authority of the College to reconstitute the ICC in terms of the UGC Regulations 2015 and to initiate and complete processes as per the same, as also the applicable statutory mandate, after affording necessary opportunity to all sides; thus culminating in a new report, as expeditiously as is possible. (b) WP(C) Nos.28734/2021 and 26174/2021 are allowed, and Ext.P1 in both these cases are set aside; however, clarifying that the disciplinary enquiry against the ‘Assistant Professors’ can continue, following law and in implicit compliance of the applicable Statutes and Rules. I also make it clear that my observations above are only for the purpose of guiding this Court to the afore directions and that the enquiry against them must be done untramelled by the same. (c) WP(C) No.5450/2022 is allowed and Ext.P5 is quashed; however, leaving full liberty to the Deputy Director of Collegiate Education to initiate and conclude action against the petitioner as per law, if so required in future, depending upon the decision to be taken by the ICC in terms of direction (a) above. Needless to say, the assertion of Dr. K.P. Sathisan, that the Director of Collegiate Education has no role to play in this issue, is left open to be decided in future, if it becomes so warranted. Before I close, I record the submissions of Sri. Rajan Babu that, notwithstanding the afore directions, since the students have already completed their course, their Conduct Certificates – without adverse entries, will be issued to them, if not already done. I thus leave liberty to the students to approach the College for this purpose, which shall be acceded to by them forthwith.