Writ Appeal Nos. 1029 of 2013 & 1342 of 2013, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 ## **WA.No. 1029 of 2013** AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.17646/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 02-04-2013 APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, U.C. COLLEGE.P.O. ALUVA-683 102, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON. BY ADVS.SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP SMT.T.MANASY RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PRAVEEN M.V., AGED 34, CO-ORDINATOR, DEPARTRMENT OF BIOTECHNOLOGY UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, ALUVA-683 102. ## 2. UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE - U.C. COLLEGE.P.O., ALUVA-683 102 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. ## 3. THE PRINCIPAL UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE, U.C. COLLEGE P.O. ALUVA-683 102, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON. R2 AND R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R1 BY ADV. SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.KRISHNA THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-11-2013, ALONG WITH W.A.NO.1342/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **K.T.SANKARAN & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ.** **---------------------------------------------------W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013 ---------------------------------------------------Dated this the 25[th] day of November, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **K.T.Sankaran, J.** These Writ Appeals arise out of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.17646 of 2012. W.A.No.1342 of 2013 is filed by the writ petitioner, while W.A.No.1029 of 2013 is filed by the third respondent in the Writ Petition. 2. Praveen M.V., the writ petitioner, is the Co-Ordinator in the Department of Biotechnology in the Union Christian College, Aluva (hereinafter referred to as 'the College'). In the year 2012, allegations arose against the writ petitioner that he sexually harassed some of the girl students in the College. The Complaints Committee (third respondent in the Writ Petition), constituted as per the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in **Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others ((1997) 6 SCC 241)** , issued ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 2 :: notice to the writ petitioner and others for an enquiry. At that juncture, the writ petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.17646 of 2012 for the following reliefs: - “a) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing and setting aside the enquiry being conducted against the petitioner by the 3[rd] respondent as per Exhibit P-1 and P-4 notices, - b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing the respondents not to continue with the enquiry without affording the petitioner a copy of the alleged complaint and a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and - c) to issue such other writ, order or direction as are deemed just and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case.” - (Ext.P1 is a notice issued by the Complaints Committee to one Joshi Paul, a staff member of the College. Ext.P4 is the notice dated 29.6.2012 issued to the petitioner directing him to appear before the Complaints Committee on 5.7.2012.) ## 3. The writ petitioner also prayed for an interim relief of stay of all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 and P4 notices. It would ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 3 :: appear that interim stay was granted by this Court and it was extended from time to time till the disposal of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the judgment dated 2.4.2013. The learned Single Judge held the following: (1) This is not a case of domestic enquiry where a show cause notice is issued and the person is called upon to answer the charges. (2) “This is a case involving allegations of sexual abuse wherein only certain guidelines issued by the Supreme Court are available. It might be a case where an oral complaint has been given or it might be a case that a written complaint is given but without disclosing the identity of the person concerned.” (3) The Complaints Committee had collected some information on the basis of statements given by various persons, the details of which can be disclosed only by the Committee concerned when they submit the report. (4) The Complaints Committee has to decide whether a copy of the written complaint, if any, has to be given to the writ petitioner. (5) The conduct of the writ petitioner in sending letters requesting for the issue of a copy of the complaint has resulted in the delay in a decision being taken by the Committee. The petitioner was responsible for the delay and in the meantime, the Complaints ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 4 :: Committee had to collect the statements from others. Therefore, it is within the absolute discretion of the Committee to decide whether the complaint received by them should be supplied to the writ petitioner. (6) At this stage, it is only a fact finding enquiry and the Complaints Committee cannot take any decision in the matter other than to report the matter to the Governing Body. (7) “At this stage of proceedings, I do not think the petitioner is entitled for a copy of the complaint, if any and insist for such a copy before appearing the Committee.” 4. Dealing with the contention of the writ petitioner that most of the students had withdrawn the complaints, the learned Single Jude held that “if the students, staff or any other person involved have no complaint it is purely for the governing body to decide whether they should continue with the proceedings with the Committee or not”. 5. On the above findings, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition and held in the concluding paragraph thus: ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 5 :: “9. In that view of the matter I do not think that there is any reason to interfere with the proceedings now initiated by the 3[rd] respondent. But it is made clear that it shall be open for the governing body to decide on the basis of subsequent events especially the letters issued by the students as well as the so called victim withdrawing their earlier complaints and to take a decision in the matter. The Complaints Committee shall proceed with further enquiry only after getting a written confirmation from the governing body in that regard. It is open for the governing body to consider the subsequent events also while taking a decision in the matter. It is also open for the governing body to decide whether the case comes within the principles laid down in **Visahaka's** case (supra).” 6. The Union Christian College, Aluva was established 93 years ago. The College is an aided college, though self financing courses are also conducted therein. M.Sc. Biotechnology Course in the College, of which the writ petitioner is the Course Co-Ordinator (meaning thereby the Head of the Department), is a self financing course. The College is affiliated to Mahatma Gandhi University. There are about 2000 students in the College and about 250 staff members, including teaching and non-teaching staff. There is a ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 6 :: Standing Council consisting of 27 members in the College, which is the apex body. The Governing Body consisting of nine members would be constituted from among the members of the Standing Council. The Complaints Committee was constituted as per the decision taken in the Governing Body held on 2.11.2011 nominating five members including one NGO member. 7. When the allegations of sexual harassment arose against the writ petitioner, the Governing Body referred the matter to the Complaints Committee. The decision of the Governing Body referring the case to the Complaints Committee reads as follows: “Allegation of sexual harassment against Mr.Praveen M.V. The GB/EC has taken serious note of the allegation of sexual harassment alleged against Mr.Praveen M.V. from various sources. A detailed discussion of the issue involved was held. Principal gave a chronology of the events in this connection, according to his understanding. He also informed the GB/EC meeting that to all who complained he intimated the provision of giving a specific and clear complaint either to him or to the Chair person of the College Women's Complaint Committee or to the Women's Commission of the State. ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 7 :: GB/EC/1/9/10-04-2012 resolved (9) to refer the issue of alleged sexual harassment raised against Mr.Praveen M.V., Co-ordinator of Biotechnology to the Complaint Committee for further enquiry. Also resolved that the staff (Teaching & Non teaching) and students of the College be made aware of the redressal mechanism that have been evolved in the context of the Supreme Court Judgment in this regard. (Action: Principal)” 8. Thereupon, the Complaints Committee issued Ext.P1 notice dated 11.5.2012 to one Joshi Paul (a staff member of the College) directing him to appear before the Complaints Committee on 25.5.2012. On 23.5.2012, the writ petitioner filed a detailed objection (Ext.P2) before the Complaints Committee, though by that time no notice was issued to him. Ext.P2 deals with several allegations and counter allegations. The Complaints Committee sent a reply dated 13.6.2012 to the writ petitioner stating that the Committee was not in a position to consider the objections raised by the writ petitioner at that stage and that the writ petitioner would be given an opportunity to present his case with respect to the allegations and the date would be informed later. Thereafter, Ext.P4 ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 8 :: notice dated 29.6.2012 was issued by the Complaints Committee to the writ petitioner directing him to appear before the Committee on 5.7.2012. The petitioner sent a reply dated 3.7.2012 (Ext.P5), praying for a week's time and reminding the Complaints Committee that copy of the complaint was not served on the writ petitioner. Ext.P6 reply dated 12.7.2012 was issued by the Complaints Committee to the writ petitioner stating that the Committee was holding the enquiry as per the decision of the Governing Body. Copy of the minutes of the Governing Body was sent to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner was directed to appear before the Complaints Committee on 20.7.2012 and to co-operate with the enquiry. The writ petitioner sent Ext.P7 letter dated 16.7.2012 in reply to Ext.P6 stating that he was not served with a copy of the complaint and that he would not get justice from the Complaints Committee. The writ petitioner quoted a sentence from the decision in **Vishaka's case** and requested the Complaints Committee to bring the whole matter before the Governing Body and Standing Council of the College for urgent consideration. The petitioner did not say in Ext.P7 letter that he was prepared to appear before the Complaints Committee. ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 9 :: 9. The Manager of the College sent a letter dated 19.7.2012 (Ext.P8) to the writ petitioner, stating that the latter's letter was placed before the Governing Body meeting held on 18.7.2012. It is seen from Ext.P8 that the Governing Body took the stand that the matter referred to the Complaints Committee is for an enquiry and the matter is pending before the Complaints Committee. It was also stated therein that there was no denial of justice to the petitioner. On 20.7.2012, the writ petitioner sent Ext.P9 letter to the Complaints Committee, in reply to Ext.P6 letter, expressing his readiness to appear before the Complaints Committee. He again made a request to issue a copy of the complaint. Ext.P9 would indicate that writ petitioner would be able to appear before the Complaints Committee only if copy of the complaint is served on him. The writ petitioner also stated in Ext.P9 that the enquiry would be a farce of an enquiry and would be in violation of the principles of natural justice, biased and vitiated by extraneous reasons. It is stated in the Writ Petition that the writ petitioner and his advocate appeared before the Complaints Committee on 20.7.2012. The Advocate was not allowed to appear for the writ petitioner and at that time, he submitted Ext.P9 letter to the Complaints Committee. Thereafter he ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 10 :: did not appear before the Complaints Committee and rushed to this Court by filing the Writ Petition on 26.7.2012. 10. Respondents 2 and 3 filed separate counter affidavits. The third respondent produced some additional documents and also filed an additional counter affidavit. The writ petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 31.1.2013. 11. In the counter affidavit filed by the Complaints Committee, the details regarding the meetings held by them and the details of the various complaints made by the students, lady teachers and lady staff to the Principal have been mentioned. It is contended by the third respondent that the enquiry was started not based on a complaint of a particular student, but based on the resolution of the Governing Body dated 10.4.2012, which in turn was based on the facts presented by the Principal before the Governing Body. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the preliminary enquiry was conducted on 28.4.2012 and further sittings were held on various dates. The statements from the students, teaching staff and nonteaching staff were taken by the Complaints Committee. Though the ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 11 :: writ petitioner was given an opportunity to appear before the Committee, he did not co-operate. It is contended that the Complaints Committee have not taken any hasty decision in the matter. ## 12. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent (on his own behalf and on behalf of the first respondent), it is stated that the enquiry was initiated on the basis of the decision taken by the Governing Body, that the enquiry by the Complaints Committee is an internal matter, that the Complaints Committee had functioned as an independent body, that the Governing Body was very particular that the Complaints Committee should conduct the enquiry without denying or violating natural justice and human right of any person and a resolution in that regard was taken, that the writ petitioner was given several chances to appear before the Complaints Committee but he did not co-operate, that the Governing Body is trying to find out the truth about the allegation of sexual harassment against the writ petitioner, etc.. The second respondent also stated that some members of the teaching staff and some students had submitted written complaints to the Principal raising allegations against the writ ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 12 :: petitioner. But the complaints were not in the proper form and they contained factual errors and flaws and therefore, the complaints were returned to the parties concerned. Thereafter, the complainants did not re-submit the same to the Principal. 13. We are not referring to any specific allegation made by the girl students or lady staff or teachers while disposing of these Writ Appeals. We notice that the allegations made against the writ petitioner are very serious in nature. It is also seen from the pleadings that when serious allegations arose against the writ petitioner, he submitted his resignation, but later he withdrew that resignation letter and it was accepted by the Governing Body. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner submitted his resignation not because of the allegations levelled against him but he got a better employment. We do not propose to consider that contention while disposing of the Writ Appeals, as it is quite unnecessary. However, it is not known why the writ petitioner did not accept that better employment later. 14. It is seen from Ext.R3(m) statement made by the Principal ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 13 :: before the Complaints Committee that he received several complaints against the petitioner. Ext.R3(m) statement was given by the Principal before the Complaints Committee since, according to him, the statement made by the Complaints Committee in the letter dated 18.7.2012 that the Principal himself presented the matter before the Governing Body was misleading. The Principal narrated the incidents in Ext.R3(m) statement. In the words of the Principal himself, the incidents which took place in the College were the following: - “II.2. To their query, I gave the following response: about 2 weeks previously, two of the non-teaching staff of the Biotechnology Department (Mrs.Dhanya and Mrs.Anju) came to my office and told me that Mr.Praveen's behaviour in the Department is not satisfactory. He is having an unholy relationship with a female student named Saranya of 1[st] year M.Sc. Biotechnology, and that they have been seen entering the Tissue Culture lab and coming out after a long time, and also at other times calls her to his office and spends long periods of time there. - II.3. I asked them whether they themselves were ever sexually harassed by Mr.Praveen, and they said “No”, ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 14 :: but added that they are very concerned about the above mentioned behaviour of Mr.Praveen. I then told them that there are 3 options available to them: giving a specific and clear complaint (a) to the Principal, or (b) to the Chairperson of the College Women's Complaints Committee, or (c) to the Women's Commission of Kerala. Both of them told me that there is no need to go to the above extent, and if the Principal could only talk to Mr.Praveen personally, that would be sufficient. So, I phoned Mr.Praveen and asked him to meet me in my office after the working hours. Mr.Praveen came and I told him of what Mrs.Dhanya and Mrs.Anju told me. Mr.Praveen appeared quite surprised to hear this and he told me that this was quite untrue, and expressed his doubt as to whether they were saying this because probably they do not like his strictness in running the Department. No formal written complaint was ever given to me by the Non-teaching staff mentioned above. 11.4. Around this period, two teachers of the Biotechnology Department (Mr.Sageer Babu and Mrs.Aiswarya) came to my office and mentioned the very same things which Mrs.Dhanya and Mrs.Anju had mentioned to me. I asked them also whether they themselves had ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 15 :: any sexual harassment from Mr.Praveen, and they also said “No”. I pointed out the 3 options before them for lodging a complaint. II.5. Three male students came to my office on 30.3.2012 and submitted a written complaint stating that Mr.Praveen M.V. was treating them as slaves and his behavior towards some female students were unbecoming of a teacher. However, there were places in the letter where whitener has been extensively used without any endorsing signatures. And there were the signatures of several other students on this letter. Seeing all this, I told them the following: (a) Any correction or erasing or use of whitener should be properly endorsed, otherwise, it could be construed that the corrections/erasing was done after obtaining the signatures and was done with ulterior motives. (b) I must see all the students who had signed the letter to ensure that they all had read and understood the contents before they put their signatures. I told the 3 boys to either endorse the whitener used areas or bring a fresh letter devoid of erasures to me and to bring the other students also who had signed, to my office between 12.35 pm. and 1.05 pm. so that I can look into the matter. They never came back, and nor did they submit a complaint as advised. ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 16 :: - II.6. On 4.4.2012 at 10 am. I met with the faculty of Biotechnology Department in the DNA Lab of the Department. All except Mrs.Krishnapriya were present. In that meeting also I told the faculty the 3 options available to them if there was indeed any instance of sexual harassment. After this meeting I called in Mrs.Dhanya and Mrs.Anju to the lab along with Mrs.Jyothi Lakshmi (lecturer in Biochemistry) and told them also about the 3 options available to them. If any instance of sexual harassment has occurred, I and Mrs.Jyothi Lakshmi went and met the 1[st] year M.Sc. Biotechnology students (the class in which Ms.Saranya was studying, and was present) and told them also of the 3 options available to them if any sexual harassment occurred. - II.7. In the very afternoon of 4.4.2012, Mr.Sageer Babu, Mrs.Soumya, Mrs.Aiswarya and Mrs.Krishnapriya (faculty, Biotechnology) came to my office with a written complaint against Mr.Praveen. As I started reading it in their presence, I noticed the statement to the effect that when some faculty members brought the issue of Mr.Praveen's unacceptable behavior, **the authorities paid no heed to it** . I was really shocked to read this, and asked them what they meant by ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 17 :: writing a statement like that when in every instance of people coming to me on the issue against Mr.Praveen, I was always ready to follow it through, and had even gone to the Department and had met with them in person. **Then Mr.Sageer Babu said that he was sorry and that it was written like that to put together a complaint.** I told the group that this sort of misrepresentation of facts is utterly reprehensible and should never have occurred. I told them that one should write only facts and not half truths or embellishments while submitting a complaint. I returned the letter to them and said that first you write your complaint properly and then bring it back to me. They left my office, taking the aforesaid complaint with them. Thereafter, till date, they did not meet me with any complaint.” 15. On going through Ext.R3(m), it would appear that the Principal was trying to avoid all complaints on one ground or other. He even wanted to delete a sentence from a complaint that in spite of the earlier complaint, the authorities did not take any prompt action. On flimsy grounds, the Principal returned all the complaints and thereby made it practically impossible for the aggrieved to put forward their grievances. ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 18 :: 16. The Complaints Committee, on the other hand, did not believe in following the principles of natural justice. They were going on their own principles which are quite against the settled principles of law. It is true that at the time when the matter was referred by the Governing Body to the Complaints Committee, there was no written complaint as such since the Principal had returned those complaints. However, serious allegations were made against the writ petitioner and those allegations were clear to the writ petitioner, the Complaints Committee and all concerned. Still, the writ petitioner adhered to his technical stand that he had not received the complaint. The Complaints Committee, on the other hand, took the stand that they need not give any copy. All these contributed to the delay in the disposal of the matter by the Complaints Committee. The allegations against the writ petitioner relate to the incidents which allegedly took place in the College. Several girl students and women are aggrieved by the conduct of the writ petitioner. The Complaints Committee was bound to consider the truth or otherwise of the allegations. We cannot arrive at a conclusion on the basis of no materials and any expression of ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 19 :: opinion by us in these Writ Appeals would be unwarranted. We only mention that the allegations levelled against the writ petitioner were serious in nature which required a prompt and meaningful enquiry without violating the principles of natural justice and at the same time following in letter and spirit the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in **Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others ((1997) 6 SCC 241).** ## 17. In **Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others** **((1997) 6 SCC 241),** it was made clear that it is necessary and expedient for employers in workplaces as well as other responsible institutions to observe certain guidelines to ensure the prevention of sexual harassment of women. It is not contended before us that an aided college does not come under the category of institutions made mention of in Vishaka guidelines. The Vishaka guidelines say that it shall be the duty of the persons concerned to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide the procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment by taking all steps required. In Vishaka guidelines, the complaint mechanism is also provided. Such ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 20 :: complaint mechanism should ensure time-bound treatment of complaints, as directed by the Supreme Court. 18. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that going by the judgment of the Supreme Court in **Medha Kotwal Lele and others** v. **Union of India and others ((2013) 1 SCC 297)** and **((2013) 1 SCC 311)** , the enquiry to be conducted by the Complaints Committee is not a fact finding enquiry but an enquiry in its full sense. It is also held by the Supreme Court that the enquiry reports could be treated as sufficient for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against the person concerned. 19. We are of the view that the Complaints Committee was not justified in denying to the petitioner access to the records which are put against him. The writ petitioner is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to defend his case. A secret enquiry without giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of being heard and a right to cross examine the witnesses is not proper at all, particularly in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in **Medha Kotwal Lele and others** v. **Union of India and others ((2013) 1 SCC 297)** and **((2013) 1** ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 21 :: **SCC 311).** At the same time, in spite of the assurance given by the Complaints Committee that they would not violate the principles of natural justice, the writ petitioner did not co-operate at all and he was responsible for dragging and protracting the proceedings to the extent possible. 20. The complaints made by the girl students regarding sexual harassment and the facts and circumstances of the case would show that, as the Head of the Department, the writ petitioner was responsible for awarding internal assessment marks. The marks to be awarded under the head “internal assessment” comes to 25% of the total marks. Naturally, the students would be afraid to make allegations against such a teacher. The contention of the writ petitioner is that many of the persons who raised complaints had withdrawn the same. The patience of the students should not have been tested like this. They have to complete their course and go away from the College. All concerned did not advert to these aspects and all of them contributed to the delay. What would happen if some of the students withdrew their complaints is a matter to be considered by the Complaints Committee. ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 22 :: 21. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner raised a contention that the Complaints Committee could act only on the basis of a written complaint and in the present case there is no such complaint. We are not in a position to accept this contention. It is not necessary that an allegation of sexual harassment made against girl students need always be in the form of a written complaint. Such allegations could be raised in the form of oral complaints as well. The Complaints Committee could consider the same and take appropriate action. In the present case, several complaints were submitted before the Principal but unfortunately those complaints were returned by the Principal to the complainants themselves. It is seen from the exhibits produced in the case that those complaints which were returned by the Principal are also on record. The writ petitioner is aware of and he is having copy of all those complaints. The proceedings before the Complaints Committee need not be based on a written complaint. It could well be on the basis of an oral complaint raised by students, parents, staff or teachers or any other person connected with the institution. ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 23 :: Accordingly, we allow the Writ Appeals, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dispose of the Writ Petition with the following directions: - a) The Complaints Committee shall fix a date of hearing in the second week of December, 2013, of which, notice shall be issued to the writ petitioner. - b) The Complaints Committee shall furnish to the writ petitioner copy of any complaint or representation which is in their possession and which does not form part of the records in the Writ Petition and Writ Appeals, when the writ petitioner appears before the Complaints Committee. - c) The Complaints Committee shall furnish copy of the statements of the complainants, witnesses and any other person, to the writ petitioner on the date of appearance. - d) The writ petitioner shall submit his objections within two weeks from the date of first hearing. - e) The writ petitioner would not be entitled to pray for any adjournment of the case (since he has already contributed ## **W.A. Nos.1029 & 1342 OF 2013** :: 24 :: much to the delay in disposal of the matter) except in circumstances of proved inability to appear for reasons beyond his control. f) The writ petitioner would be entitled to cross examine any person whose statement has been recorded or is to be recorded hereafter by the Complaints Committee. If any of the witnesses is found to be not available for cross examination, the Complaints Committee shall record the same and proceed in accordance with law. g) The Complaints Committee shall complete the enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit its report to the Governing Body expeditiously. **(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge** ## **(M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge** ahz/