SANDHYA TIWARI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE of this petition was issued and counter affidavits have been filed by the respondent no.2 Indira Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Sciences (hereinafter called College) affiliated to the respondent no.1 University of Delhi and the respondent no.3 Dr. Dhananjay Shaw employed as Associate Professor with the respondent no.2 College. The petition was thus ripe for hearing and hearing was commenced.

(2.) THE senior counsel for the petitioner argued, (i) that the petitioner employed with the respondent no.2 College had made a complaint against the respondent no.3, also employed in the respondent no.2 College; (ii) that though the complaint of the petitioner against the respondent no.3 was not of sexual harassment but the respondent no.2 College has misconstrued the same as a complaint of sexual harassment and proceeded to enquire therewith as a complaint of sexual harassment; (iii) that the complaint of the petitioner against the respondent no.2 was of misconduct, within the meaning of Appendix introduced vide Amendment dated 19th March, 2014 to Ordinance XI of the University Calendar i.e of not abiding by the professional ethics, and should be enquired as a complaint of misconduct and not as a complaint of sexual harassment; and, (iv) that this petition has been filed for a direction to the said effect to the respondent no.2 College.

(3.) THE counsel for the respondent no.3 contended that the complaint of the petitioner was enquired as a complaint of sexual harassment owing to the petitioner herself marking a copy of the said complaint made to the Principal of the respondent no.2 College, to Dr. Sarita Tyagi, Chairperson of the College Complaint Committee (CCC) constituted under the Ordinance XV D of the University Calendar to enquire into the complaints of sexual harassment. It is further contended that the said CCC enquired into the said complaint of sexual harassment, with the petitioner participating therein, and held about five to six sittings and has vide order dated 10th August, 2015 exonerated the respondent no.3 from the charge made by the petitioner of sexual harassment. It is further contended that this petition has been filed on 18th August, 2015, after knowledge of the respondent no.3 having been so exonerated from the false charge made by the petitioner against him, and to keep him embroiled in a departmental inquiry to prevent him from taking over as officiating Principal of the respondent no.2 College which is due to him as per seniority. It is yet further contended that the husband of the petitioner Dr. Sandeep Tiwari, also employed in the respondent no.2 College, is next in seniority to the respondent no.3 and the purpose of filing this petition is only to enable the husband of the petitioner to become the officiating Principal instead of the respondent no.3.