WAHEED AKHTAR ANSARI Vs. PRESIDENT KHAIRUL ISLAM HIGHER EDUCATION SOCIETYS MAHARASHTRA COLLEGE OF ARTS AND COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waive service. By consent of the learned counsel, taken up for hearing and final disposal.

(2.) On 22nd August, 2002 the Petitioner was appointed as a Shikshan Sevak in a junior college conducted by the First and Second Respondents for a term of three years. A complaint was addressed on 16th January, 2003 to the management by a lady lecturer complaining of sexual harassment by the Petitioner. An explanation was called for by the management from the Petitioner on 18th January, 2003 and his services were terminated on 31st January, 2003. According to the Petitioner, between the receipt of the complaint and the letter of termination certain events transpired. The allegation of the Petitioner is that on 22nd January, 2003 he was called to the police station at Nagpada; he was assaulted there and he was compelled to sign an inculpatory statement. Thereafter, the Petitioner alleges that on 25th January, 2003 he was summoned to the office of the Principal where a statement accepting of guilt was dictated by the Principal and corrected by a trustee. The Petitioner claims that on 28th January, 2003 he submitted a fair copy of the explanation to the Principal. A letter of termination followed on 31st January, 2003.

(3.) The Petitioner challenged the order of termination before the Grievance committee set up in pursuance of a Government Resolution dated 13th October, 2000 issued by the State Government to regulate the terms of appointment and conditions of service of Shikshan Sevak. The appeal was dismissed by the Grievance committee on 8th April, 2004. The order of the Grievance committee was challenged by the Petitioner in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution (Writ Petition No.1680 of 2004). The Writ Petition was disposed of by a Single Judge of this Court on 2nd July, 2004. This Court inter alia noted that the case of the Petitioner was that the apology which he had been called upon to tender by the Principal was not voluntary. The Court observed that the Grievance committee had not considered as to whether the allegation of misconduct was established.