M SUMITHRA Vs. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY JNANA BHARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is working as senior grade lecturer at Kannada Adhyayana Kendra, Centre for kannada Studies, Jnana Bharathi, Bangalore University. She made a complaint against Professor siddalingaiah, Director, Centre for Kannada Studies, to the Hon'ble Minister for Higher education and to the Sub-Inspector, Jnanabharathi Police Station, regarding the alleged sexual harassment, A University Committee for Combating Violence and Sexual Harassment for women at Work Place, held an enquiry on the complaint of the petitioner and after such enquiry it exonerated Professor Siddalingaiah. In other words, it held the allegations in the complaint were not substantiated. In the report it also recorded a finding that the petitioner, Professor siddalingaiah and Ph. D. student C. M. Rajanna have misconducted themselves in the course of their employment. The material produced before Court shows that Item No. 3 of the agenda in the extraordinary meeting held by the Syndicate on 29. 3. 2005, the Vice Chancellor briefed the syndicate about the report submitted by the Committee. After detailed discussion they took a decision to accept the report of the Committee. The said report contained certain adverse comments on the conduct of the aforesaid three persons and therefore a decision was taken to issue showcause notice to the petitioner and an explanation also was sought from Dr. Siddalingaiah. A decision was also taken to furnish a copy of the report to all the three persons. In view of the fact that Dr. Siddalingaiah was exonerated of the charges of sexual harassment levelled against him. A decision was taken to transfer the petitioner to the Department of kannada, PG Centre, Kolar.

(2.) ON 16. 8. 2005 yet another meeting of the Syndicate was held where the wordings of Clause (2)of the previous meeting was corrected. Thereafter, a notice was issued in terms of the said decision to the petitioner as well as Siddalingaiah and the student Raj anna. The notice issued to the petitioner is at Annexure-G In the said notice the petitioner was informed that the Committee has submitted its report, the same was placed before the Syndicate on 29. 5. 2005 and 16. 8. 2005 and the Syndicate has accepted the report. As the allegations made by the petitioner were found to be without any basis a decision is taken to transfer the petitioner to Kolar. In the report at pages-24, 27, 30, 31, 32 and 33 there is a reference to the petitioner having contravened clause-a (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) of the Disciplinary Rules and therefore she was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against her. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner gave a reply at Annexure-H. The Syndicate considered the explanations given by all the three persons in the meeting held on 15. 11. 2005. They accepted the explanations offered by siddalingaiah and Rajanna. They found the explanation offered by the petitioner as unsatisfactory. In order to prevent further misunderstanding and mistrust between the petitioner and Siddalingaiah they took a decision to transfer the petitioner to PG Centre at Kolar. It was also stated that the said decision is taken to maintain peaceful academic atmosphere in the kannada Center at Bangalore. Further they also took a decision that as the order of transfer may be challenged before the High Court and in order to see that no interim order is granted without enquiring the University, to prevent the same, to enter a caveat after consulting the legal advisors. Accordingly caveat is entered on 26. 11. 2005. Based on the aforesaid decision the impugned order of transfer at Annexure-A dated 25. 11. 2005 is passed transferring the petitioner to the PG Centre at Kannada Department at Kolar of the Bangalore University. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred this writ petition before this Court.

(3.) ON 2. 12. 2005 the respondents' Counsel who had entered a caveat took notice and sought for time to file objections to the writ petition as well as to the interim order sought for and submitted that the matter itself can be disposed of finally. Accordingly the case was adjourned to 6. 12. 2005 and in the meanwhile it was ordered that the order of transfer shall not be given effect to. The respondents have filed a detailed counter traversing the allegations made and they also produced the documents in support of their contentions.