second year Course in Computer Technology, submitted a joint representation dated 22.08.2016 to the Head of the Department of Computer Technology complaining about the aberrant behaviour of one Mr. K. Balaji, Head of the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering in the Laboratory attached to the said college. Subsequently, two other girl students have also made representation about the indecent and offensive comments made by the said K. Balaji in the classroom about the respondent. In this context, the respondent made a detailed representation dated 22.08.2016 to the Principal of the College bringing to his notice the aforesaid behaviour of the said K. Balaji. However, instead of taking action against the said K. Balaji, the respondent herein was summoned by the appellant herein in his capacity as Chairman of the Staff Enquiry Committee and accordingly, the respondent appeared before the appellant on 26.08.2016 for an enquiry. Thereafter, on 21.09.2016, the respondent was issued a charge memo. According to the respondent, after issuing the charge memo, without conducting any enquiry, a show cause notice dated 04.10.2016 was issued to the respondent proposing to impose penalty on her for which she submitted her explanation on 09.10.2016. However, without considering her objections in the proper perspective, a final order dated 26.10.2016 was passed imposing penalty on the respondent. Assailing the order dated 26.10.2016, the respondent filed WP No. 40151 of 2016 before this Court in which notice was ordered on 30.11.2016. When the matter is subjudice, she has received a letter dated 22.11.2016 in which the appellant had stated that since she has filed the writ petition against the management of the College, she was directed to go on leave from 22.12.2016 till the disposal of the writ petition. The respondent also stated that she was personally intimidated and pressurised to withdraw the writ petition filed before this Court. In the aforesaid circumstances, she has filed an application as contemplated under Section 15 of The Contempt of Courts Act seeking the consent of the learned Advocate General of the State for initiating criminal contempt against the appellant. This is how the Contempt Petition No. 3 of 2017 came to be entertained by the learned Advocate General in which the order dated 19.12.2017 came to be passed by him opining that the letter written by the appellant would amount to interfering with or intending to interfere with the due course of judicial proceeding pending before this Court namely the writ petition filed by the respondent besides that the appellant, by virtue of his writing the letter dated 22.11.2016, interfered with the administration of justice and thus granted consent.
