AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Rajan, J.—This writ petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ of Declaration, declaring the enquiry which is sought to be
conducted by the 3rd respondent herein as a one member Enquiry Officer, into the charges leveled against the respondents 4 to 7 herein as
incompetent, void, wholly without jurisdiction.
This writ petition has been filed by one C. Parthiban, father of one of the complainants and by another complainant Akila. There are two more
complainants given complaint against respondents 4 to 7 about some sexual harassment. On that complaint, a four member committee headed by
the first respondent, enquired into the matter and filed a report. Accepting that report, departmental proceedings have been initiated against
respondents 4 to 7. The present writ petition has been filed by the complainants for the reason that notice has been given dated 12.04.2004
whereby it is stated as follows:
During the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer may ask the complainants and the respondents to present the complaints and arguments again, point by
point, along with any material evidence available, such as (i) research notebooks, written manuscripts, corrected parts of the
thesis/dissertation/project report, TC and Conduct Certificates, certificates of the UG course, copies of any other document related to the
complaint from the complainants and (ii)attendance registers for MSW and M. Phil courses during the last three years, despatch notebooks for
2000-2003, copies of TC/Conduct Certificates given to students, and any set of correspondence about students and Research Scholars regarding
sending them for projects/field work, copies of testimonials given to students and scholars from 2000 and any other relevant material from the
respondents.
Mr. AR.L. Sundaresan, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainants are only witnesses and by this order, they are
directed to produce those documents referred therein. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the enquiry conducted by the
four member committee is sufficient and based on that, final order can be passed and there is no need to conduct another enquiry headed by a
single individual.
This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is not acceptable inasmuch as the four member committee was appointed only to find out
whether there is any prima facie case.
As per the Judgment reported in Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, , the Honorable Supreme Court has laid down various
guidelines. In that, in guidelines No.6 and 7, it is pertinent for the ''Complaint Mechanism'' and ''Complaints Committee''. Pursuant to this direction,
the four member committee had been appointed as ''Complainants Committee'' and it has given a finding that there is a prima facie case against the
respondents/delinquent officers. Once it is satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against the respondents/delinquent officers, it is the
duty of the employer, the University herein to initiate departmental proceedings and that is what is done in this case by appointing an enquiry officer
and departmental enquiry has been initiated. In the departmental enquiry, the complainants are only witnesses. They have no obligation to produce
any documents or materials to support the charges. The charges that are leveled against the respondents have to be proved only by the department
namely, the University. But, the University directed the witnesses, namely the complainants herein, to produce those documents. In so far as this
direction is concerned, this cannot be legally enforceable and hence this direction is scraped.
It is for the authority to prove the charges in the enquiry in accordance with the Rules and to give a finding. Based on the finding, department shall
take further action in accordance with law.
In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected WVMPs and WPMPs are closed. No costs.