ORDER : Kunuru Lakshman, J. 1. Heard Sri Sai Teja K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.09.2024 issued by the Registrar of respondent No. 1-University, whereby, he has cancelled the admission of the petitioner. 3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 would reveal that the University has received complaints against the petitioner alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner. They have received complaints from both male and female students. The said complaints were placed before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for relevant action. The Presiding Officer, ICC i.e., respondent No. 3 after conducting inquiry submitted report holding that the petitioner is guilty of the allegations leveled against him and the said allegations were proved. The petitioner simply denied all incidents described in the complaints. Therefore, on consideration of the said report, vide order dated 20.09.2024, the Registrar of the respondent-University cancelled the admission of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has not received copies of the said complaints and was not even afforded an opportunity. The respondent-University did not follow the procedure laid down under the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter, 'Regulations, 2015'), more particularly, Regulation No. 8. 5. In the light of the same, this Court directed Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents to get specific instructions and also to produce copy of the Inquiry Report. He has produced copy of the Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2024 along with the copies of complaints. 6. Perusal of the said complaints would reveal that the respondent-University has received about 20 complaints from both male and female students alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner. The said complaints were considered and respondent No. 3 has submitted Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2024. 7. Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations, 2015 deals with the process of conducting inquiry. The same is relevant and is extracted below: "8. Process of conducting Inquiry-(1) The ICC shall, upon receipt of the complaint, send one copy of the complaint to the respondent within a period of seven days of such receipt. 7. Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations, 2015 deals with the process of conducting inquiry. The same is relevant and is extracted below: "8. Process of conducting Inquiry-(1) The ICC shall, upon receipt of the complaint, send one copy of the complaint to the respondent within a period of seven days of such receipt. (2) Upon receipt of the copy of the complaint, the respondent shall file his or her reply to the complaint along with the list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses within a period of ten days. (3) The inquiry has to be completed within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the complaint. The inquiry report, with recommendations, if any, has to be submitted within ten days from the completion of the inquiry to the Executive Authority of the HEI. Copy of the findings or recommendations shall also be served on both parties to the complaint. (4) The Executive Authority of the HEI shall act on the recommendations of the committee within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the inquiry report, unless an appeal against the findings is filed within that time by either party. (5) An appeal against the findings or/recommendations of the ICC may be filed by either party before the Executive Authority of the HEI within a period of thirty days from the date of the recommendations. (6) If the Executive Authority of the HEI decides not to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then it shall record written reasons for the same to be conveyed to ICC and both the parties to the proceedings. If on the other hand it is decided to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then a show-cause notice, answerable within ten days, shall be served on the party against whom action is decided to be taken. The Executive Authority of the HEI shall proceed only after considering the reply or hearing the aggrieved person. (7) The aggrieved party may seek conciliation in order to settle the matter. No monetary settlement should be made as a basis of conciliation. The HEI shall facilitate a conciliation process through ICC, as the case may be, once it is sought. The resolution of the conflict to the full satisfaction of the aggrieved party wherever is preferred to purely punitive intervention. No monetary settlement should be made as a basis of conciliation. The HEI shall facilitate a conciliation process through ICC, as the case may be, once it is sought. The resolution of the conflict to the full satisfaction of the aggrieved party wherever is preferred to purely punitive intervention. (8) The identities of the aggrieved party or victim or the witness or the offender shall not be made public or kept in the public domain especially during the process of the inquiry". 8. As discussed supra, admittedly, the respondent-University did not follow the said procedure laid down under Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations, 2015. Copies of the said complaints were not furnished to the petitioner calling him to submit explanation. Thus, opportunity was not given to the petitioner. Therefore, the Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2024 of respondent No. 3 is in violation of principles of natural justice and also the procedure laid down under Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations, 2015. 9. Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would fairly concede the said fact. However, copies of Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2024 along with the complaints of students were furnished to the learned counsel for the petitioner today in the open Court. 10. Basing on the said Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2024, the Registrar of respondent-University has issued the impugned order dated 20.09.2024. 11. The aforesaid fats would reveal that the respondent- University did not follow the procedure laid down under Regulations, 2015 while conducting inquiry and also while issuing impugned order dated 20.09.2024. On the said ground alone, the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 is liable to be set aside. However, there are serious allegations against the petitioner herein. The complaints are from both male and female students. A period of 90 days was mentioned to complete the inquiry under Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations, 2015. The impugned order is dated 20.09.2024 and since then the petitioner is not attending classes. Petitioner is in first year of ELE. Respondent No. 3 has to complete the inquiry, as expeditiously as possible and submit report to the Registrar of the respondent-University, who inturn, will consider the said report and take action, if any, in accordance with law and the procedure laid down under the Regulations, 2015. 12. Petitioner is in first year of ELE. Respondent No. 3 has to complete the inquiry, as expeditiously as possible and submit report to the Registrar of the respondent-University, who inturn, will consider the said report and take action, if any, in accordance with law and the procedure laid down under the Regulations, 2015. 12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Writ Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 of the Registrar of the respondent-University including the Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2024. Liberty is granted to the respondents to initiate fresh action by strictly following the procedure laid under the Regulations, 2015, more particularly, Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations, 2015 and shall complete the entire process within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the petitioner is not entitled access to the respondent campus. It is made clear that the petitioner shall co-operate with respondent No. 3 in concluding the inquiry. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.