IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:3.11.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR WRIT PETITION NO.25989 OF 2007 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2007 V.Ezhil Vendan. ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Pondicherry University, represented by its Vice Chancellor, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014. 2.The Registrar, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry-605 014. 3.The Sexual Harassment Prevention Committee, Pondicherry University, represented by its Chairperson, Pondicherry University, Puducherry. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order in No.PU/Estt/NT8/2006- 07/428 dated 22.2.2007 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to publish the result of the petitioner of the second semester examinations held in April 2006 in PG Diploma Yoga Studies Course and issue Certificates to the petitioner. For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Vijayalakshmi For Respondents : Mr.A.V.Bharathi, for R1 and R2 : No appearance for R3 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order No.PU/Estt/NT8/2006-07/428 dated 22.2.2007 passed by the second respondent and quash the same as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and direct the respondents 1 and 2 to publish the result of the petitioner of the second semester examinations held in April 2006 in PG Diploma Yoga Studies Course and issue Certificates to the petitioner. 2. Petitioner after completion of B.Sc. Zoology degree course in Tagore Arts College, Pondicherry in the year 2002, joined the one year Post Graduate Diploma in Yoga Studies conducted by the Pondicherry University in the year 2005. Petitioner completed the First Semester. The Second Semester commenced in January, 2006. 3. On 31.1.2006, 30 girl students studying in various departments and staying in the respondent University campus gave a written complaint to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent University alleging that number of male students of Yoga Department were indulging in eve teasing and offending their feminity. The complaint was placed before the Sexual Harassment Prevension Committee constituted by the respondent University. Thereafter, the Committee went into the issue and conducted a detailed enquiry. Several girl students of the respondent University were enquired and a report was filed on 21.2.2006. In the report of the Committee, it has been stated that the girls suffered eve teasing and vulgar comments from a group of boys stationed in front of the Centre for Yoga Studies. In particular, the Committee in its report stated that the girl students identified the petitioner when his photograph was shown to them. The girl students of two hostels, viz., Cauvery and Yamuna clearly stated that the harassment as above was going on for quite sometime and when it became intolerable, they have come forward with the complaint. 4. According to the Committee's report, many of the girl students did not want their identity to be disclosed fearing reprisal. The statement of the girl students is supported by the warden. The Committee, based on the statement of the girl students identifying the petitioner as the main person involved in the alleged offence, was of the clear view that actions should be taken against petitioner. The Committee also recommended certain remedial actions to avoid such incidence in future. In particular, the Committee recommended strict action to be taken to put an end to the menace of eve teasing by the petitioner and his group. The Committee realising the fear of reprisal expressed by the girl students recommended that suitable security should be given within the campus so as to enthuse confidence. The Committee also suggested better lighting facilities and additional security in the evening. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Consequent to the Committee's report, on 17.4.2006, the petitioner was suspended. He was, however, permitted to write the exam based on his request letter dated 19.4.2006, subject, however, to result of the disciplinary action contemplated against him. On 23.11.2006, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within ten days. On 4.12.2006, petitioner submitted his explanation denying the charges, and also stated to the authorities that many of the students have expressed that they have not given the complaint and the entire allegation is false. The said explanation of the petitioner was considered by the Sexual Harassment Committee in detail. The explanation was not found to be satisfactory in view of the overwhelming evidence and statement of girl students. The Committee was of the view that the petitioner was guilty of the offence alleged and recommended suitable punishment in its report dated 28.12.2006. 6. Based on the said report dated 28.12.2006, the impugned memorandum dated 22.2.2007 was passed by the Registrar. The relevant portion of the impugned order is set out hereunder:- "5) And now the Disciplinary Authority after careful consideration of the SHPC report and the reply, and as per the section 30(3) of the Academic Ordinance of Pondicherry University, has decided to impose upon Shri V.Ezhil Vendan the penalty of cancellation of all the examinations written by him during April 2006 and to make a suitable entry regarding his misconduct in the Conduct Certificate issued by the Department. 6) The examinations written by him are accordingly treated as cancelled. A suitable entry will be made in his conduct certificate as and when issued. 7) If Shri V.Ezhil Vendan so desires, he may apply for appearing in the next examination." 7. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the enquiry was not conducted properly. Some of the students have stated that they did not give such a complaint and one student had withdrawn her complaint, hence, the charge has no basis. In any event, it was pleaded that the punishment is harsh and excessive. The petitioner's entire career will be ruined if the impugned order is not set aside. 8. Heard Mrs.A.V.Barathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, who produced the records and supported the impugned proceednigs. It is stated that the Committee enquired into https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the matter in detail and the proceedings were conducted by following the principles of natural justice. All persons who are affected were heard and only thereafter, the Committee gave the report. The petitioner was given an opportuity to submit his explanation to the show cause notice dated 23.11.2006. Petitioner in response submitted an explanation on 4.12.2006. Therefore, peititoner can have no grievance on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The Committee, after proper equiry and considering the sensitive nature of the case, after a proper but discreet enquiry, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had indulged in the eve teasing and was harassing the girl students. The explanation given by the petitioner was once again considered and only thereafter, the Committee imposed a punishment and therefore, the petitioner cannot plead that the respondent University have acted arbitrarily. 9. In so far as the petitioner's plea that some of the students have withdrawn the complaint is concerned, it is based on no material. There is nothing to prove this. A typed copy of letter finds place in the type set of papers supporting such a plea, but there is no proof to authenticate the letter and establish its genuineness. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to accept the said plea of the petitioner which appears to be the main plank of petitioner's case. 10. The respondents have conducted the enquiry in detail by forming a Committee as required by law. All persons concerned were heard, a report filed and the petitoner was given a show cause notice containing the gist of allegations as per report. Respondents have satisfied the requirement of principles of natural justice. The petitioner's response was considered. The Committee, after considering the oral and supporting evidence against the petitioner and that of his defence, came to the conclusion of guilt. The finding is no way perverse or unreasonable. 11. The respondent authorities have been more than kind inasmuch as while imposing the punishment cancelling the examination, already written, allowed the petitioner to reappear in the next examination. To this extent, the petitioner should thank his stars. This Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the proceedings of the respondents. 12. Insofar as the entry with regard to conduct certificate is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to make a representation to the respondent University for reconsideration and the same shall be considered on merits and in accordance with law. 13. This Court finds no good reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings of the second resondent on merits. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14. The Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts To 1.The Vice Chancellor, The Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry-605 014. 2.The Registrar, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry-605 014. 3. The Chairperson, The Sexual Harassment Prevention Committee, Puducherry University, Puducherry. 1 cc To Mr.A.V.Bharathi, Advocate, SR.79262. 1 cc To Mr.D.Rajagopal, Advocate, SR.79245. W.P.No.25989 of 2007 SA(CO) RVL 08.12.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/