M G SHIRHATTI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jahagirdar in support of this petition. Mr. Naik, AGP appears for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are members of the Committee of Enquiry appointed by respondent No. 1- university. They are served and being members of the Committee, they have not engaged any Advocate to represent them. Mr. Talsania and Ms. Menon appear for respondent No. 7. Respondent No. 8 is served.

(2.) The petitioner is the Principal of respondent No. 6-Lalalajpat Rai college. The college is affiliated to respondent No. 1-University which is governed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. Respondent No. 7 is a Lecturer working in respondent No. 6-college. She made a complaint of alleged sexual harassment against the petitioner. This has led to the constitution of the Committee of Enquiry which consists of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 headed by Mrs. Justice Baam (respondent No. 3) , a retired Judge of this Court. The petitioner has been suspended vide order dated 10-12-2004 issued by respondent No. 6-college in pursuance of the interim order dated 25-11-2004 passed by the Committee. The present petition seeks to challenge the enquiry being held by this Committee on various grounds, though the principal grounds are firstly that respondent No. 4, who is a Professor in the University, has a bias against the petitioner and, therefore, she should not be continued in the committee. Secondly, it is submitted that under the said Act the Vice Chancellor was not empowered to issue the Directions under which the enquiry is being held and that the second set of Directions amending the earlier Directions are also bad in law. The petition challenges the suspension order as well.

(3.) As far as the bias alleged against respondent No. 4 is concerned, it is submitted that way back on 8th February, 2002 when respondent No. 4 was proposed for the post of Dean of faculty of Law, the petitioner is reported to have opposed her nomination. Respondent No. 4 was selected as the Dean of faculty of Law in spite of his opposition. It is further submitted that respondent No. 4 is a member of the Bombay University and College Teachers' Union (BUCTU) and that this Union had taken a lead in raising the grievances of the 7th respondent concerning sexual harassment. A handout of BUCTU dated 10-9-2004 is relied upon for that purpose. Now, as far as the first ground, namely, that respondent no. 4's nomination was opposed by the petitioner is concerned, what is material to note is that firstly this was way back in February, 2002. This Committee of enquiry including respondent No. 4, came to be constituted some two and half years thereafter by an order passed on 14th September, 2004 by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2493 of 2004. The petitioner was a respondent in that petition being respondent No. 5. The petition was filed by respondent No. 7 making a grievance with respect to the then Chairman of the enquiry Committee. The said Chairman was replaced under this order passed by the Division Bench on 14th September, 2004. Surely, if the petitioner herein (respondent No. 5 to that petition) had any objection to respondent No. 4 becoming a member of this Committee, he ought to have raised his grievance at that point of time.