Well. It is all over. The cat is out of the bag. The J is out.
======================================
Readers kindly apologise me for being repetitive. Below while discussing the judgement (whose link I have given at the bottom) I would also walk you through as to what happened between myself and the complainant, and the partisan role of JNU. I feel, everyone was passing the buck starting from the Dy. Registrar (Admn.) to members of the GSCASH -- Screening Committee, Enquiry Committee, Appeals Committee, Executive Council, VC, Registrar -- everybody. Nobody had the courage to take a stand against this case of blatant injustice being enacted right before their eyes! The DHC has also proved to be an extension counter of the quasi-judicial JNU committees. DHC also has played it safe; because everybody knows the truly affected will definitely try out all that is available to him for obtaining Justice. And that lies with the Supreme Court. Well.

I feel it is an instance of past karma being repaid. However, I have to try even if I may keep losing the battles in between, I MUST WIN THE WAR.  

I, Sri Aiyer Raju Sreenivasan, was compulsorily retired by JNU on the trumped up charge of sexually harassing a woman Professor (WP) through lewd emails beseeching her to render me Axl Rose (an anagram for a basic instinct) on 11 and 12 April 2008 from my Yahoo ID to her Hotmail ID written in transliterated Tamil which she allegedly deleted both from her inbox and trashcan that she could not even enclose their hard copy along with her complaint letter. What led her to make this fictitious complaint was a tongue-lashing I gave her on 10 April 2008 in an evening encounter during our routine walk round the Campus with a “just shut up and mind your own business” as I couldn’t bear no more her inquisitive querying on a personal matter spread over 18 months. Hearing this from a lowly humble but a Professorial Stenographer, her Professor’s ego was immensely bruised so much as to promise me “to teach the lesson of my life” before walking away.

We were friends for nearly 20 years. She was well known to my wife and children. Therefore on reaching home in order to patch up with her with a “I am sorry”, I telephoned her at 7 (10^th Apr 2008). She banged the phone down. I followed it up on 12^th April at 7.30 with the same result. I made one last attempt to arrive at a rapprochement with her on 15^th April 2008 at 10.00 am, in vain. That was the end of the story. I forgot all about it till I was rudely awakened on 29 September 2008 through a communication from the Gender Sensitization Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH) Cell that a complaint of sexual harassment has been levelled against me by a WP.
 
Her word, even in the absence of a hard copy was accepted as Gospel, and the GSCASH went through the motions of having it screened, enquired into etc [In fact nobody on earth has seen these emails including Their Lordships of the High Court] and pronounced me guilty recommending the imposition of the penalty of “compulsory retirement without financial loss”.  
 
Under the GSCASH rules a defendant can appeal before an Appeals Committee whose recommendations are to be placed before the Executive Council, and only on the recommendation of the Executive Council can the VC authorize taking penal action. Whereas the VC may be all powerful otherwise, in sexual harassment cases, he has to wait for the final outcome before the EC. Although the Honourable High Court unfortunately says that I applied for constitution of an Appeals Committee on 3 August 2010 the truth is there for all to see in black and white [which somehow has escaped Their Exalted Lordships' attention] that I had not once but many times wrote to the VC and Registrar to allow me to appeal before the Appeals Committee preceding the day of execution i.e., 29 July 2910. Allowing the "Appeal" after executing the punishment is like a capital punishment of death by hanging being implemented after which appeal on his behalf is fought before the relevant august bodies. This is one amongst the many farces played by the academic institution called JNU. It has now succeeded in dragging the Honourable temples of justice also into the mud!
 
Tweedledum and tweedledee, the then Vice-Chancellor BB Bhattacharya and Acting Registrar VK Jain, were in a hurry to see me out of the Campus for whatever reason, and had me compulsorily retired on 29 July 2010 without giving me access to the Appeals Committee. I had to file two separate Writs before DHC for giving me access to the Appeals Committee and to have its recommendations placed before the Executive Council. JNU had to yield on the Court’s directives.
 
Therefore my challenging the power of the Registrar to sign my execution order was only to the extent that he jumped the gun without waiting for the due process of Appeal and consideration by EC was over. The Honourable High Court has again erred in its oversight. I am surprised as to why it allowed itself to be misled by the package of lies presented by JNU without going into the truth staring at them on their face from the papers before them. They delivered this judgement after reserving it for 24 days. I wish in the meantime they had gleaned from the papers as to what is the truth and what is not!
 
Returning to the complaint of sexual harassment through emails of 11-12 April 2008 from my Yahoo ID which I denied. It was referred to the Delhi Police Cyber Cell and Yahoo. The Delhi Police Cyber Cell Report (DPCCR) and the Yahoo Report (YR) – one a law enforcing agency and the other an Email Service Provider -- reported as follows: That I had registered my ID on 14 February 2008 and accessed it subsequently on 30 April 2008, 14 and 18 May 2008 IMPLICITLY PROVING that I did not even log into my email account on those two culpable days! How on earth can anyone send an email without logging into an account?
 
It is commonsense that while depending upon circumstantial evidence to determine the guilt of the accused, the moment you are confronted by a direct proof of innocence as provided by the DPCCR and YR, the accusation of sending lewd emails should have been dumped with the contempt it deserves howsoever tempting and attractive the former may appear. To put it in proper perspective it is like Sunny Leone fading out when Sri Devi enters the scene!
 
However, if on the contrary, the officers engaged in providing justice ignore the direct proof of innocence as contained in the DPCCR and the YR, and instead are relying on conjectures and surmises used by JNU to pronounce me guilty, then it is general knowledge as to who attracts more contempt and derision.

This is one case where the innocence of the accused is staring at you on your face, and yet you have the heart to stomp over it? When the accused has proved the first accusation as a lie and concoction, does it not follow from it that the other accusation of stalking is also a deliberate fib? The third accusation of telephone calls at odd hours – does the calls made at 7 pm, 7.30 pm and 10 am in a place like Delhi, you call it untimely? And the sole derisive word of “ennadi” [which anyhow I deny] do you want to take it seriously as an allegation of “sexual harassment” of a Professor?

I leave it to the readers conscience. In the meanwhile I am getting ready for meeting my fate in the Supreme Court of India! I have 90 days time for that. However, I wouldn't wait that long, I would like to get back into JNU and serve it till July 2015 when I should be retiring in normal course after receiving all my back wages for over three years in a lump sum.
 
PS: (1) The judgement by the Single Bench can be obtained here: http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/VJM/judgement/23-03-2013/VJM13032013CW25412011.pdf
 
(2) The judgement by the Higher Bench presided over by the Acting Chief Justice can be obtained here: http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/VIB/judgement/23-08-2013/VIB23082013LPA3302013.pdf