VISHWESH DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR . Vishwesh Dayal Shrivastava is before this Court for following relief;

(2.) THE factual matrix giving rise to the instant writ petition in brief is that Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur established under the provisions of the Institutes of Technology Act 1961 and is governed by the provisions of the said Act and the statutes of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur. The petitioner was appointed on 02.02.2009 as Librarian, P.K. Kelkar Library at Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur in PB -IV with pay -scale of Rs. 37400 -67000/ -. The post of Librarian is a post in the cadre of Professor. The petitioner is in continuous service since 02.02.2009. During the continuance of petitioner complaints have been made qua the behaviour of the petitioner and such complaints being complaint dated 19.09.2013 made by Pragati Indoria, undated complaint of Madhu Agnihotri and complaint dated 26.12.2014 of one Ramakant and another undated complaint of Shiv Shankar Shukla. On the said complaints being received, by an order dated 10.03.2014 a four member enquiry committee headed by one Shri N.N. Kishore as the Chairman was constituted to examine the complaints against the officials of P.K. Kelkar Library. During the course of the aforesaid proceedings petitioner was called upon to appear before the Committee, at the said juncture petitioner claims that he has requested the authorities concerned to supply copies of complaints. Petitioner submits that in response to his request, copy of complaints had been supplied to him under covering letter dated 05.05.2014. Petitioner submits that after receiving the said complaints he filed a representation dated 08.05.2014 before the Chairman of the Committee and claims that he appeared before the Committee on 09.05.2014 and on the relevant date questions of general nature were put up to him and same were properly replied by him. The aforesaid Committee submitted its report on 31.07.2014 making recommendations to the effect that the Library required new leadership that adresses all the administrative issues highlighted in the committee report. The said Committee in question in reference of Pragati Indoria, the lady who has been the sufferer, made categorical mention that she during the meeting with the Committee spoke about the issues of harassment, which the Committee felt needed to be looked into by the Women Cell, and she also gave an additional written complaint and in pursuance thereof the matter was referred to the Director for appropriate action.

(3.) ON 10.09.2014 and internal committee of the Woman Cell was constituted with Dr. Nandini Nilakantan as its Chairperson, Dr. Mini Chandran as its Vice Chairperson, Meera Jain as the External Member and Dr. Monika Katiyar, Dr. Gautam Dev, Dr. Nandini Gupta and Dr. Devopamdas as its members. The Chairperson of the Woman Cell issued a notice dated 19.10.2014 to the petitioner intimating that 10.11.2014 has been fixed as the date of first hearing pertaining to the complaint submitted by Pragati Indoria for the purpose of enquiry in terms of Section 11 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 read with Rule 7 of the Rules framed thereunder. Petitioner submits that before the internal committee, statement of Ramakant, Brij Mohan Singh and Sunil Rana were recorded on different dates and all such statements have been recorded behind the back of petitioner. Petitioner has contended that thereafter statement of petitioner as well as statement of Suresh Singh, Bharat Lal, Darshan Singh, Dr. Anjani Bhatnagar, Archana Sachan, Uma Shankar and Umed Singh was recorded as witnesses on behalf of petitioner. Petitioner has contended that during the course of the proceedings before the internal complaints committee, petitioner filed two representations dated 05.11.2014 and Pragati Indoria filed a further representation dated 26.11.2014 and also an application dated 05.12.2014 purporting to explain the reason for delay in complaint. Petitioner submits that thereafter the internal complaint committee proceeded to submit report dated 19.02.2015 recording therein that the charges of sexual harassment against the petitioner were reasonably established and the committee proceeded to recommend appropriate action against the petitioner, as per the service rules applicable to the employees of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur.