Removal based on vague charges and undisclosed evidence without inquiry violates natural justice.

The petitioner, a Lecturer in the Department of Zoology at Annamalai University, was asked to appear before the University’s Complaints Committee following a notice dated 1 April 2022 concerning sexual harassment.

He responded to questions put by the Committee and was later suspended.

A charge memorandum was issued on 18 July 2022, to which he submitted an explanation.

The petitioner contended that he was not given the specific allegations, the Committee’s reports, supporting documents, or witnesses, and that no regular domestic enquiry was held before his removal from service on 4 December 2024.

He sought to quash the removal order and obtain reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service.

1. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and removal order were vitiated by failure to disclose specific allegations and relied-upon material, and by the absence of a regular enquiry.

2. Whether the impugned removal order should be set aside and the petitioner reinstated, while permitting fresh disciplinary proceedings.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice to disciplinary proceedings.

It stated that charges in a charge memorandum must be specific and that the employee must be furnished with the relevant particulars, documents, and witnesses relied upon.

Where the disciplinary authority relies on a committee report, the employee must be provided with the supporting material necessary to answer the case against him.

The Court also relied on its decision in Dr. Stanely Mainzen Prince v. The Syndicate and two others, W.P. No. 39844 of 2024, dated 15 June 2026, involving a co-employee removed on the same date.

The Court found that the initial notice referred to sexual harassment but did not disclose the specific alleged misconduct or the complainant’s identity.

The ten charges in the memorandum were vague and hypothetical, and the petitioner was not supplied with the specific imputations or the material supporting the Complaints Committee’s findings.

The University removed him without conducting a domestic enquiry, despite his explanation to the charge memorandum.

The Court therefore held that the proceedings, from the initial notice through the removal order, violated natural justice.

It also noted that the removal of the petitioner’s co-employee had been set aside on similar grounds.

It directed the University to reinstate the petitioner with monetary and consequential benefits and continuity of service within eight weeks of receiving the order.

The Complaints Committee was given liberty to initiate de novo disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of, with no order as to costs.