Page 1

1

                                                    NON-REPORATABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.9149-9150  OF 2015 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26425-26426 of 2014]

Dr. I. Ismail  ..       Appellant

Vs.

K. Shameem Rani & Anr.  ..      Respondents

J U D G M E N T

C. NAGAPPAN, J.  

 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are preferred against the judgment dated  

9.2.2011 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in  

Writ Appeal (MD) No. 295 of 2010 and order dated 30.6.2014  

passed in Review Application (MD) No. 84 of 2012.

Page 2

2

3. The facts in brief are as follows: The appellant joined the  

second respondent College as Assistant Professor in the year  

1978 and was promoted  as Professor in the year 1988.  He was  

appointed  as  Principal  in  the  year  1999.   A  charge  memo  

containing  31  charges  was  served  on  the  appellant  on  

30.8.2003.  The first 9 charges related to harassment including  

sexual harassment based on the complaint given by the first  

respondent  and  other  charges  related  to  misuse  of  power,  

insubordination and misappropriation etc.   A  retired  District  

Judge was  appointed as Enquiry Officer and after a detailed  

inquiry, he submitted report holding that the charges levelled  

against  the appellant were proved except charge nos. 4, 10 to  

15,  23  and  25.   After  following  the  procedure  an  order  of  

removal dated 2.12.2005 was passed by the second respondent  

college and the appellant challenged the said order in WP No.  

11618 of 2005 before the High Court.  In the meanwhile, new  

governing  body  for  the  second  respondent  college  was  

constituted on 25.6.2006 and it passed resolution on 29.5.2006  

and  ordered  to  reinstate  the  appellant  with  consequential

Page 3

3

benefits.  The appellant re-joined the service and withdrew his  

writ petition on 12.7.2006.

4. An old student of the second respondent college filed writ  

petition  by  way  of  public  interest  questioning  the  order  of  

reinstatement of the appellant and the first respondent herein  

also  filed  another  writ  petition  challenging  the  reinstatement  

and both the writ petitions were heard by Division Bench of the  

High  Court  along  with  another  writ  petition  filed  by  the  

appellant  challenging  the  order  dated  21.7.2008  of  the  

management  accepting  his  voluntary  retirement  request.   By  

common  judgment  dated  30.9.2009,  the  Division  Bench  

dismissed the public interest writ petition as well as the writ  

petition filed by the appellant and allowed the writ petition filed  

by  the  first  respondent  herein  and  set  aside  the  order  of  

reinstatement  of  the  appellant.   Aggrieved  by  the  same,  

appellant preferred special leave petitions in S.L.P. Nos. 35065  

and 35066 of 2009 and this Court dismissed the petitions on  

25.1.2010.  However, the appellant was granted liberty to renew

Page 4

4

his challenge to the order dated 2.12.2005 in accordance with  

law.   

5. The appellant filed writ petition in WP (MB) No. 1132 of  

2010 challenging the removal  order dated 2.12.2005 and the  

Single Judge by order dated 21.4.2010 allowed the writ petition  

on  the  short  ground  that  the  committee  had  not  been  

constituted as per the judgment of this Court in  Vishaka Vs.  

State of Rajasthan and Ors. ( 1997  (6) SCC 241)   to consider  

the charge of sexual harassment in the work place.  The first  

respondent herein challenged the said order by preferring writ  

appeal in WA (MD) No. 295 of 2010 and Division Bench of the  

High Court  held  that  most  of  the  charges   including  sexual  

harassment were found proved by the  Enquiry Officer and the  

report was accepted by the management and having noticed the  

gravity  of  the  proved  charges,  the  governing  body  in  its  

resolution dated 2.12.2005 passed the order of removal of the  

appellant from service and the issue has already been decided  

and  the  removal  order  was  found  valid  and  ordered  to  be  

restored by setting aside the order of the reinstatement  and the

Page 5

5

said judgment of the earlier  Division Bench has become final  

and consequently  allowed  the writ  appeal and dismissed the  

writ petition filed by the appellant.  The appellant filed review  

petition  and  the  same  was  dismissed.   Challenging  the  

impugned judgment as well as the order in review these appeals  

have been preferred.   

6. We heard the submissions of Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned  

senior  counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  and  Mr.  J.M.  

Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.   

7. There is inordinate delay of 1186 days in filing the SLPs.  

By  order  dated  29.8.2014  this  Court  issued  notice  on  the  

application for condonation of delay as well as on the special  

leave petition.   In the petition seeking for condonation of delay  

it is stated that the Division Bench of the High Court rendered  

its judgment dated 9.2.2011, and then the appellant filed review  

petition  and that  also came to be dismissed and hence the  

delay has occurred in  filing the  SLPs.  There is gross delay of  

almost 3½ years in challenging the judgment rendered in the

Page 6

6

writ appeal and no explanation much less cogent explanation  

has been given by the appellant.  There is no reason to condone  

the delay.  Even otherwise on merits also no case is made out  

for interference by this Court.   The Division Bench of the High  

Court has elaborately considered the issues including the issue  

of  res judicata and concluded that the order of removal of the  

appellant dated 2.12.2005 is proper and valid and upheld the  

same.  We find no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment.

8. The appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay as well  

as on merits.  No costs.  

………………….J.  (M.Y. Eqbal)

        . …………………J.   (C. Nagappan)

New Delhi; October 30, 2015.