AMIT KUMAR Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the Letter dtd. 18/12/2020 as well as Letter dtd. 23/12/2020. By way of the former communication, the order of the Vice Chancellor/Respondent No. 2 College approving the Compulsory Retirement of the Petitioner was communicated by the Joint Registrar (Colleges) to the Principal of Respondent No.2 i.e., Bharati College whereas by way of the latter communication, the said order was intimated by Respondent No. 2 College to the Petitioner. Thus, the services of the Petitioner stood compulsorily retired with effect from 18/12/2020 by way of the Impugned Orders.

(2.) Shorn of the unnecessary details, facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition reveal that the Petitioner herein was appointed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science in the Respondent No.2 College which is affiliated with the Delhi University i.e., Respondent No.1 herein. Material on record discloses that four complaints were received against the Petitioner herein alleging sexual harassment. Of these, three complaints were from the students of Respondent No.2 College whereas the fourth complaint was received from an alumnus of Respondent No.2 who was a former student of the Petitioner. The first two complaints were received on 12/2/2018 whereas the other two complaints were received on 15/2/2018 and 24/2/2018. These complaints pertained to the sexual innuendoes/advances of the Petitioner by way of Facebook Messenger chats and WhatsApp chats sent by the Petitioner to the complainants. Material on record further discloses that the precipitative factor that led to the filing of these complaints was a video of the confrontation between some of the complainants/students of the Respondent No. 2 College and the Petitioner which became public on 5/2/2018. The same led to an agitation amongst the students and they demanded an inquiry into the allegations against the Petitioner. Pursuant to the repeated requests, the Proctor of Respondent No. 1 University vide a Communication dtd. 7/2/2018 requested Respondent No.2 College to initiate an inquiry/action against the Petitioner to investigate the allegations. It was in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the four complaints were forwarded to the Internal Complaints Committee ('ICC') to conduct inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ('POSH Act') and UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015 ('UGC Regulations').

(3.) In strict compliance of Sec. 16 of the POSH Act, the ICC has concealed the identity of the complainants and referred to them as Complainant No.1, Complainant No.2, Complainant No.3 and Complainant No. 4 and the same nomenclature will be followed hereinafter. For the sake of brevity and convenience, it is noted that the two complaints dtd. 12/2/2018 were filed by Complainant No. 2 and 4, whereas the Complaint dtd. 15/2/2018 was filed by Complainant No. 3 and Complaint dtd. 24/2/2018 was filed by Complainant No 1.