DR. SMT. VATHSALYA K. SHETTY, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.30, BUILDING NO.6, BMC QUARTERS, GOVERNMENT COLONY, HAJI ALI, MUMBAI Vs. BRIHANMUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MAHAPALIKA MARG, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner is a Doctor (MDS) and Associate Professor in the Department of Conservative Dentistry at Nair Hospital Dental College, which is a Municipal Hospital Dental College (hereinafter referred to as 'the said College') of the Respondent No.1-Corporation. The Petitioner alleges that she was subject to sexual harassment by the fourth Respondent who is also a Doctor (MDS) and Associate Professor and was the Acting/In-charge, Head of Department of Conservative Dentistry of the College at the time of filing of this Petition in Aug. 2005. The Petitioner, by this Petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for an order for appropriate action against the fourth Respondent for his alleged acts of sexual harassment. The Petitioner also sought a writ of mandamus against the Respondent-Corporation and its officials to quash an enquiry against her (in respect of a letter written by her and Dr. Ajay J. Thakore on 21 April 2015 through an Advocate to Dr. Pravin Solanki, a Lecturer, without informing their superiors.)

(2.) During the pendency of this Petition on the basis of an inquiry by a Core Committee against sexual harassment, on 16 Jan. 2006, an order was passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner (Competent Authority) punishing the fourth Respondent with stoppage of one increment for one year with temporary effect. By way of amendment, the Petitioner has challenged the said order dated 16 Jan. 2006 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner (Competent Authority) to the extent of exoneration of the fourth Respondent of charges (a) and (b) which were in relation to her Complaints. Directions are also sought against the fourth Respondent to proceed on leave and if he refuses to proceed on leave to order his suspension from service. It is also prayed that the Respondent-Corporation and its officials be ordered and directed to reconsider the Core Committee Report and the evidence and order for the dismissal of the fourth Respondent. By way of a further amendment, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 16 Oct. 2007 passed in the internal Departmental Appeal whereby the fourth Respondent was exonerated from all charges levelled against him. By this amendment, the Petitioner also sought revocation of the order dated 20 Feb. 2008 passed by the Respondent-Corporation promoting the fourth Respondent to the post of Professor, Head of the Department (HOD) Conservative Dentistry (this order was later withdrawn by the Respondent-Corporation, hence this prayer did not survive). Interim and ad-interim reliefs were also sought in the Petition.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is that she is working in the Department of Conservative Dentistry since 1995 and she has put in 10 years service as a Doctor in the Hospital. She is also teaching students of the second year, third year and fourth year of BDS in the said College. She had also studied in the said College from the year 1984 to 1992 and did BDS and MDS and she was enjoying a good reputation in the Hospital as well as in the said College. The Petitioner had occasion to work in the past 10 years under the fourth Respondent being Senior by about three years. She studied together with the fourth Respondent in the said College for a period of seven years (1984-89 to 1990-92) and the fourth Respondent was senior to her by a year. The Petitioner as well as the fourth Respondent are teaching undergraduate dental students including male and female students in the Department of Conservative Dentistry. According to the Petitioner, she had received number of complaints from female students about the misbehaviour of the fourth Respondent while teaching in class-room as well as outside the class-room. She did not take a note of those complaints, but she realized about the misbehaviour of the fourth Respondent when she herself became the victim of his sexual harassment. By letter/Complaint dated 6 May 2004 addressed to the Municipal Commissioner, the Petitioner complained about the misbehaviour of the fourth Respondent with her and other lady students and staff. It was stated in the said Complaint that the behaviour and attitude of the fourth Respondent for the last few years was most undesirable and intimidating. She complained that he was very rude and overbearing with all the subordinates and colleagues and particularly with female staff. She stated that on many occasions in the past she had to remind him of his behaviour, but to no avail. She complained that the fourth Respondent was deliberately misbehaving with her and other female students and staff, that he was threatening them with dire consequences if any protest was made and that the fourth Respondent was taking advantage of his position as Associate Professor and was exploiting the situation. She complained that on many occasions the fourth Respondent had always taken difficult posture and threatened her. She stated that she tried to avoid making any formal complaint as she did not want to make an issue, particularly because the fourth Respondent was her colleague for many years. She complained that the fourth Respondent had become more aggressive and difficult to live with assuming her silence as a sign of weakness.