In Brief
A university terminated an Associate Professor's probation after an Internal Complaints Committee found him guilty of sexual harassment of female students. The termination order simply stated his performance was unsuitable without detailing the serious misconduct allegations. The Supreme Court held the order was ex-facie stigmatic and punitive because it rested on a formal inquiry into serious misconduct culminating in a finding of guilt. Such termination requires a regular departmental inquiry under service rules with due process, not just a simple probation termination. The Court set aside the termination, directed reinstatement, and left the question of back wages and further inquiry to the University's discretion under applicable law.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.