The appellant furnished a detailed reply to the Committee, running into fifty three pages wherein he raised some preliminary objections to the inquiry being conducted by the Committee, alleged a well organized conspiracy against him by some wayward students in connivance with the members of the faculty and refuted the contents of fourteen depositions of girl students forwarded to him by the Committee. He concluded by stating that the charges of sexual harassment levelled against him were completely false and baseless. The appellant also addressed a letter to the Registrar seeking removal of two Members of the Committee on the ground of bias and on a plea that being his subordinates, they were prone to bias. After about ten days, the appellant sent a letter to the Chairperson of the Committee stating inter alia that he had partially recovered from his ailment and was in a position to depose. He sought fresh dates to enable him to furnish a reply to the additional depositions received by him. However, by then the Committee had proceeded ex-parte against the appellant and submitted its Report to the Registrar of the respondent no. 2 University stating that meetings had taken place in connection with the inquiry that had established sexual harassment of the complaints by the appellant which act amounted to a grave misconduct and was in gross violation of Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules and consequently, recommended termination of his services. Referring to the correspondence exchanged between the Committee and the appellant, learned counsel submitted that the appellant was granted at least three opportunities to submit his reply and eighteen hearings were conducted by the Committee but he did not participate in the proceedings on several dates. Only after the appellant failed to turn up and made flimsy excuses of indisposition and repeatedly sought adjournments .