LAWS(KAR)-2019-8-55

PROFESSOR GIRIDHAR MADRAS Vs. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE

Decided On August 06, 2019
Professor Giridhar Madras Appellant
V/S
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed the following reliefs:

(2.) (A) The 1st respondent The Indian Institute of Science (for short the 'IISc') constituted under the scheme called 'scheme' for the administration and management of the properties and funds of the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru', which is in vogue with effect from 22.5.1967. Paragraph-2 relates to definition (m) "regulations" means the regulations framed pursuant to Clause 21 of the Scheme and (n) "Byelaws" means the byelaws framed pursuant to Clause 22 of the Scheme. Paragraph-4 relates to authorities. Relevant authorities for the present case are (c) Council and (i) such other authorities as may be declared by the regulations to be the authorities of the institute.

(3.) Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor at IISc and thereafter he has earned promotion to the post of Professor of Chemical Engineering at IISc. Respondent No.3 was a student and petitioner was a Guide to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 had certain grouse against the petitioner relating to alleged sexual harassment while associated with the petitioner in the profession. Therefore, she had given oral complaint on 10.11.2016. On 12.11.2016 complaint was recorded in writing by the SHCC. During the period from 24.11.2016 to 12.12.2016 SHCC proceeded to hold a preliminary investigation. Thereafter on 7.12.2016 notice was issued to the petitioner while not revealing the identity of respondent No.3. Petitioner submitted his explanation/reply to the notice issued by SHCC on 19.12.2016. In this backdrop, on 23.12.2016, written complaint was filed before the SHCC by respondent No.3. SHCC met with petitioner and orally requested him to provide another response. Even at this stage, complainant identity was not made known to the petitioner on 11.1.2017. Petitioner had submitted his explanation pursuant to the aforesaid meeting with SHCC on 13.1.2017. At this juncture, complainant requested the Committee not to proceed further with the enquiry on 20.1.2017. When things stood thus, complainant respondent No.3 filed a complaint with SHCC stating that she was being ignored by the petitioner and not meeting for work related matters. For the first time, petitioner was made known identity of the complainant respondent No.3 after nearly about 140 days on receipt of first complaint dated 12.11.2016/ subsequent complaint dated: 23.12.2016 was made known on 20.4.2017. There was certain defect in constituting SHCC and it was reconstituted as ICASH and inquiry was proceeded. The Committee proceeded to hold an inquiry and submitted inquiry report while recommending to take action against petitioner on 28.2.2018. The ICASH recorded testimonies of 32 witnesses and documents. A communication was made to the petitioner along with inquiry report seeking explanation of the petitioner on 02.05.2018 and 14.09.2018 respectively. Petitioner requested for voluntary retirement. In this backdrop, petitioner was retired compulsorily as a measure of penalty while extending 75% of admissible pension on 17.10.2018.