The Court had on March 6 directed the Commissioner of Police to register a case on her complaint. It had given an interim direction on a criminal original petition by the lecturer and directed her to lodge a fresh complaint with the Police Commissioner, who after perusal, should register a case if a cognisable offence is established.
Contending that the termination order assigns no reason, she alleged that the college authorities have blindly taken the decision without even following the principles of natural justice of giving an opportunity to her.
She also alleged that the impugned termination order has first of all closed all the doors for her to get Justice from the management on her complaint.
She said the whole proceedings against a victim of sexual harassment stands bad in the eye of the law and termination of services does not protect the liability of the institution from proceeding against the offenders.
More From This Section
The lecturer said her job at the college was her only means of livelihood and sought to quash the termination order.
In her March 6 petition, she had said she was appointed as a lecturer in Tamil Department of the College in 2007 and that Rajarajan, who was promoted as Head of Tamil Department the next year, allegedly started behaving indecently and another Assistant Professor Prince allegedly also joined him.
At one point she decided to resign from the college but after the assurance by the Principal that he would take action, she said, she continued.
She had also alleged that in spite of repeated reminders she was not provided copies of the report whereas they were supplied to accused and no action was taken against them till date, either by the University or by the College.