AJAY TIWARI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall decide an appeal preferred in terms of Clause 10 of Letters Patent, as applicable to the High Court of Delhi, preferred by the appellant assailing the impugned judgment/order dtd. 25/11/2019 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 1288/2012, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Writ petition assailing the decision of the Executive Council [EC], University of Delhi/respondent No.1 vide Memorandum dtd. 8/7/2011 (Annexure P-1) imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the appellant on the basis of a Sexual Harassment Complaint filed by respondent No.2, who is hereinafter referred by the pseudonym, namely Ms. 'M' in order to protect her identity. Respondent No.3 is Professor Vibha Maurya, who was a member of the Sub-committee that inquired into the misconduct of the appellant, and her husband is respondent No.4, a fellow professor in the University of Delhi and respondent No.5 is one Anil Solanki.

(2.) Briefly stated, the appellant joined as a Professor in the Hindi Department, University of Delhi in the year 1981 and became a Professor for the Hindi Department in the Faculty of Arts, University of Delhi in the year 2004. A complaint was addressed by respondent No.2, Ms. 'M' on 9/9/2008 (P-5) to the Vice-Chancellor [VC], who was pursuing M. Phil. in the Hindi Department, alleging sexual harassment meted out to her not only by the present appellant but also two other members of the faculty, namely Professor Ramesh Gautam and Professor Sudhish Pachauri. The complaint was initially referred to the University Units Complaints Committee [UUCC] as per Ordinance XV(D) of the Ordinance governing the University [Resolution No. 96 dtd. 3/9/2003]. The redressal mechanism consisted of a three-tier hierarchical structure viz., the 'UUCC', followed by the Apex Complaints Committee [ACC] and finally the 'EC'. It appears that the complainant leveled certain allegations against the members of the 'UUCC', and the 'VC' marked the complaint to the 'ACC', which convened, a Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee [SHCC], to inquire into the complaints. Thereafter, a Show Cause notice was issued to the appellant directing him to appear before the 'SHCC' on 21/10/2008 which was responded to by the appellant vide communication dtd. 18/10/2008(P-3) requesting that a copy of the complaint preferred by Ms. 'M' be provided to him; to which the 'SHCC' responded vide communication dtd. 27/4/2008 (P-14) expressing its inability to provide a copy of the complaint to the appellant. In the meanwhile, the complainant Ms. 'M' raised certain allegations against the members of the 'SHCC' about misbehavior meted out to her, and hence, the 'VC', transferred the complaint to the 'ACC', which constituted a Sub-Committee and embarked upon an inquiry.

(3.) The appellant vide communication dtd. 4/3/2009 (P-6), reiterated his request to be supplied with copies of the complaint and other documents/material furnished by Ms."M'. He further sought permission to lead oral and documentary evidence as also to allow him to cross examine Ms."M', inter alia not only challenging the procedure for inquiry adopted by the 'ACC' but also contending that there were no 'unwelcome' sexual advances. Moreover, the relationship between him and the complainant was 'consensual' and rather that he has been a victim of a conspiracy hatched between respondents No. 2 to 5. The 'ACC' did not accede to the request and vide communication dtd. 18/3/2009 (P-8), informed him of the charges framed against him, which were as under: