WP/39645/2024 of DR.J.NELSON SAMUEL JEBASTIN Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 29 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned university order No. 843/2024 (C) dated 04.12.2024 passed by 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with effect from 04.12.2024 along with back wages with continuity of service.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of Zoology at the 2nd respondent University. While so, on 01.04.2022, the 3rd respondent issued a notice to the petitioner without disclosing the nature of the enquiry, directed him to appear before the Complaints Committee on 13.04.2022. During the enquiry, certain hypothetical questions were put to the petitioner, to which he submitted his reply on 19.04.2022 as directed by the Complaints Committee. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent suspended the petitioner on 25.04.2022 and thereafter, a charge memo was issued on 18.07.2022.

3. After the issuance of charge memo, the petitioner has given his explanation on 11.08.2022. However, without conducting a regular enquiry, furnishing the documents relied upon or referring the witnesses to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent passed impugned order vide University Order No.843/2024 dated 04.12.2024 and removed the petitioner from service.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the impugned University Order No.843/2024 (C) dated 04.12.2024, where there is reference about certain reports of the Complaints Committee against sexual harassment at workplace dated 22.04.2022. He submitted that these reports were never furnished to the petitioner. It was further submitted that no supporting documents were provided alongside the charge memorandum. Therefore, the entire disciplinary proceedings stand vitiated by not following the principles of natural justice. Hence, he prayed to allow this writ petition.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the order of the learned single Judge of this Court in WP.No.39844 of 2024 dated 15.06.2026.

6. The said contention was totally objected by the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent and would contend that the University followed all due procedures. He contended that at every stage of the proceedings, the petitioner was put on notice and petitioner had given reply. Only after considering his explanations and after taking into consideration of the findings of the Complaints committee, for the serious charges of sexual harassment, the petitioner was removed from his service. Hence he contend that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

8. Let us look into the factual position as to where the respondent had complied the principles of natural justice. In the case in hand, the disciplinary proceedings commenced based on a notice issued to the petitioner dated 01.04.2022. while perusing such notice, there is reference about sexual harassment, but the petitioner has not furnished with the specific details regarding the nature and instance of the misconduct against him. Furthermore, the identity of the complainant was also not furnished to him.

9. On perusal of the explanation of the petitioner dated 19.04.2022, it appears that the petitioner has responded to the hypothetical questions put to him by the respondents. Subsequently, charge memorandum was issued on 18.07.2022. it is a well settled principle of law whenever charge memorandum is issued, the charges should be specific, and the management is bound to furnish the details, documents and witnesses they rely upon, to the delinquent. In the case in hand, the respondent have formulated ten distinct vague charges against the petitioner.

10. On perusal of those ten distinct charges, they appears to be hypothetical in nature and furthermore, the specific imputations of misconduct were never furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charge memo is very vague. Furthermore, though the petitioner had duly submitted his explanation to the charge memorandum, the second respondent, without conducting any domestic enquiry all of a sudden, removed the petitioner from service with effect from 04.12.2024. On perusal of the impugned order, the disciplinary authorities relied upon the report of the internal Complaints committee, however, no supporting documents or evidence were supplied to substantiate the findings in the said report.

11. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the entire disciplinary proceedings commencing from the enquiry notice and the issuance of charge memo and the subsequent passing of the order of removal from service were in violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court finds every justifiable to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.12.2024.

12. In this regard, it is also relevant to refer the order passed in the case of Dr.Stanely Mainzen Prince vs. The Syndicate and two others in W.P.No.39844 of 2024 dated 15.06.2026, who is also the co-employee of the petitioner who was also terminated from service on 04.12.2024 vide University Order No.842/2024(C) dated 04.12.2024. Whereas this petitioner was removed from service vide impugned University Order No.843/2024 (C) dated 04.12.2024. The Writ petition filed by his co-employee, Dr.Stanely Mainzen Prince, this Court for the above reasons has set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that, in view of the above detailed discussion, the impugned University Order No.843/2024 (C) dated 04.12.2024 is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside.

13. The 2nd respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner with all monetary and consequential and with continuity of services within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the 3rd respondent is given liberty to initiate de novo disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.

14. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SHL To:

1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep By Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009.

2. The Registrar Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu 608 002

3. The Complaints Committee Rep By Its Member Secretary, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu 608 002

C.KUMARAPPAN J. SHL WP No. 39645 of 2024 and WMP No. 42931 of 2024 29-09-2026