PROF. S.P. NARANG Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 4th March, 2002 passed by the Executive Council of the respondent University whereby he has been disengaged from the services of the University.

(2.) Some of the facts are, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Sanskrit in the Department of Post-graduate (Evening Studies, University of Delhi) on October 10, 1970, and thereafter as the Head of the Department in July, 1996. It is the case of the petitioner and also contended by Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel for the petitioner that as a Head of the Department, the petitioner was required to supervise the research work and performance of Research Scientists under the Research Fellow Scheme of the University Grants Commission. Two Research Scientists came under his supervision. Mr. Saini states that the said Scientists were not amenable to discipline. They started making complaints to the higher authorities and other forums. They never maintained leave and other records properly during the petitioner's sabbatical leave for visit to USA. The petitioner's signatures were forged by these Scientists in connivance with the Head of the Department and Clerks. The said Scientists instead of mending their ways were bent upon creating trouble to the petitioner and wanted to get rid of him and in this regard they invented a method of taking revenge against the petitioner under the garb of sexual harassment. In November, 1997, they managed a pseudonyms complaint purported to have been written by one Dr. D.K. Pal wherein the allegations of sexual harassment were leveled against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his observation on the said complaint. It is his submission that they also made a complaint to the Vice Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor and National Commission for Women in regard to their alleged harassment by the petitioner which was subsequently given the colour of sexual harassment. Mr. Saini states that an Enquiry Committee was constituted by the Vice-Chancellor to investigate the allegations of sexual harassment. However, the petitioner was not informed about the constitution of the same. That apart, he states that no chargesheet was issued to the petitioner nor his explanation was called for. Further, neither the list of witnesses nor list of documents were provided to the petitioner despite repeated requests by him. He states that the Committee constituted by the Vice-Chancellor was performing the dual role of a Judge and a Prosecutor. In substance, it is the submission of Mr. Saini by drawing my attention to Ordinance 11 (6) that the procedure which has been laid down for conducting enquiry has been violated. The petitioner had asked the Enquiry Committee time again about the charges against him; the procedure to be followed by the Committee during enquiry; cross-examination of the witnesses by him; documents required by him for his defence; statement of the witnesses. Mr. Saini's submission is that the petitioner was informed by the Committee that there is no scope of cross-examination either of the complainants or of the witnesses. He was not allowed to be present when the prosecution witnesses gave their statements and deposed before the said Committee. That apart it is his submission that the Executive Council has also without giving him a copy of the report of the Enquiry Committee had considered the same and passed the impugned order. That apart the impugned order is an unreasoned order. In other words, the submission of Mr. Saini is that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice which resulted in the petitioner getting disengaged prematurely, which has put a stigma on the character of the petitioner. In this regard, he also states that the Supreme Court in its landmark judgment of Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1997 (6) SCC 241 has nowhere held that enquiry should not be conducted or that no procedure should be followed by the Committee; i.e., the Committee should not follow the principles of natural justice. He has drawn my attention to the Enquiry Committee report to contend that the conclusion therein is perverse and the Committee on its own concluded that the complaints made by the two Researchers did not explicitly name the harassment as sexual harassment, as they wanted to use decent words in their complaints. In other words, it is his submission that the said Researchers had improved their case while giving statements before the Committee which otherwise they had not pleaded in their complaints. He reiterates that these statements were never given to the petitioner nor these statements were recorded during his presence apart from denying the right of cross-examination. He relies upon the definition of "harassment" to contend that every harassment need not be a sexual harassment. He, in this regard relied upon the definition in the Black's Law Dictionary to contend that sexual harassment is a type of employment discrimination including sexual advances, request for sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature, which have not been alleged against the petitioner by the said Researchers in their complaints. He would rely upon the judgment of this court in the case of Balvir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. W.P.(C) 8321/2015 decided on 31st August, 2015 to contend that this Court has held that even in case of sexual harassment, the enquiry has to be conducted in good faith after giving fair opportunity to both the sides.

(3.) On other hand, Mr. Amit Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would justify the impugned action. He states that all procedures have been followed as per rules and principles of natural justice. According to him, the petitioner was duly informed about the appointment of the Enquiry Committee to investigate the complaints of sexual harassment against him which was in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Visakha's case (supra). The petitioner did not question the constitution of the committee. The Committee had provided to the petitioner the copies of the complaints made by the two Researchers, (Annexure P-3). He also states that the allegations made in those complaints are the charges against the petitioner enquired by the Enquiry Committee. According to him, during the course of the enquiry, the statements of both the complainants and the petitioner were recorded and tape recorded statements of the complainants reduced to writing were made available to the petitioner. He appeared before the Enquiry Committee on 23rd May, 2001 and 25th May, 2001 and made statements in defence which was also tape recorded. The tape recorded statement was transcribed and sent to him for correction and his signatures. The Enquiry Committee submitted its report to the Vice- Chancellor on December 3, 2001 wherein it had found the petitioner guilty of administrative and sexual harassment of the two Research Scientists. Since the Enquiry Committee clearly established the sexual nature of harassment, the Executive Council came to an unanimous conclusion that the services of the petitioner be disengaged on the ground of misconduct. He also states since the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of misconduct, there was no requirement for giving any notice or three month's pay in lieu thereof. He states a sympathetic view has been taken and the petitioner has been given his retirement benefits. He would rely upon the following judgments, which are reported as: