Dr. Swapna Gopinath vs The Principal
2022 Latest Caselaw 6497 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 27639 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

              DR. SWAPNA GOPINATH
              AGED 51 YEARS
              D/O. GOPINATH V., RESIDING AT LAKSHMI,
              TC 30/1888/1, PETTAH P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 024.

              BY ADVS.
              RAGHUL SUDHEESH
              K.J.GLAXON
              J.LAKSHMI
              XAVIER THOMAS V.T.



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE PRINCIPAL
              SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, CHEMBAZHANTHY,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 587.

     2        THE MANAGER
              SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, CHEMBAZHANTHY,
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 587.

     3        INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
              REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, SREE NARAYANA
              COLLEGE, CHEMBAZHANTHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 587.

     4        UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION (UGC)
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, BAHADUR SHA ZAFAR MARG, NEW
              DELHI-110 002.

              BY ADVS.
              M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
              SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, S.N. COLLEGE
              SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC
 WP(C) NO. 27639 OF 2021
                                      2

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   08.06.2022,   THE   COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 27639 OF 2021
                                 3

                          JUDGMENT

There can be little doubt, from the pleadings and the

materials on record, that the mention of the petitioner's name

in Ext.P1 Internal Complaints Committee, constituted by the

1st respondent - Sree Narayana College, Chembazhanthy, was

unwarranted and unnecessary, particularly when, concededly,

she had been given no opportunity of defending herself.

2. I notice from Ext.P1 that petitioner is concerned

because her name has been taken in a very casual manner, to

allege that it is on account of a talk given by her in the college,

that certain girl students made allegations against another

faculty member.

3. Sri.Raghul Sudheesh - learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, submitted that Ext.P1, to the extent to which it

includes his client's name, can never be found to be legally

tenable because, had there been any valid allegation against

her, she ought to have given an opportunity of explaining it.

He contented that, in the absence of such opportunity being WP(C) NO. 27639 OF 2021

offered, Ext.P1, to the extent to which it relates to his client,

will certainly have to be set aside.

4. Sri.A.N.Rajan Babu - learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the College and Sri.M.S.Radhakrishnan Nair -

learned counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent - Principal of

the College, submitted that Ext.P1 does not refer to the

petitioner's name as a person who has been found guilty, but

has made a reference to her solely because the students

appear to have been persuaded to make a complaint against

the faculty, based on the inputs that she had given to them.

They submitted that it was not the intention of the Internal

Complaints Committee (ICC) to find fault with the petitioner in

any manner, but that her name was only taken as a passing

reference, to explain the background in which the whole

incident happened.

When I consider the afore submissions, it is rendered

indubitable that petitioner cannot be stigmatized or put to any

detriment through a process in which she had not been given WP(C) NO. 27639 OF 2021

even an opportunity of being heard.

In such circumstances, I am left without any doubt, as I

have already said above, that Ext.P1 to the extent to which it

refers to the petitioner cannot be granted imprimatur.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and expunge the

name of the petitioner from Ext.P1; and further declare that no

detriment shall be caused or brought against her on account of

having referred her name in the first place.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB WP(C) NO. 27639 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27639/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ICC REPORT DATED 19.10.2021.

Exhibit P2 TRUE OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT DATED 8.4.2016 IN WPC NO.4001 OF 2016.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO DR. MANU REMAKANT DATED 18.10.2021.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO REMYA C.R. DATED 18.10.2021.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO SANGEETHA HARIHARAN DATED 18.10.2021.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO DR.

LEKHA N. B. DATED 18.10.2021.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED TO LAKSHMI A.J. DATED 18.10.2021.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2021 IN WPC 24806/2021 AND CONNECTED MATTERS (W.P.(C)24808/2021& WPC 24987/2021)

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT DATED 1.11.2021 IN WPC 23694/2021.

Exhibit P10               TRUE COPY OF THE      SCREENSHOT OF THE
                          SOCIAL MEDIA POST     OF THE PETITIONER
                          DATED 30.5.2021.