ASHISH KUMAR DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the writ petition. The petitioner being a Professor in the Department of Mathematics in North Eastern Hill University (for short NEHU), has filed this writ petition on the ground that the Complaint Committee namely the Women's Cell set up in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Vishaka & Ors Vrs State of Rajasthan & Ors, 1997 6 SCC 241 and Hon'ble Apex Court, which held a preliminary inquiry, has also been asked to hold a regular inquiry. Thus, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the Committee which, prima facie, held him guilty of misconduct should not have been assigned the job of conducting a regular inquiry.

(2.) The petitioner joined the respondent-University in the year 1993 as a Lecturer in the Department of Mathematics. Through out his service career of 21 years, there has been no blemish on his character. He commanded equal respect among teachers as well as students, as such, he was promoted as Professor in the Department of Mathematics. He also claims to have supervised research work of several students and to his credit there are a large number of research publications of high repute, even in International Journals. He is also the reviewer of mathematical reviews of the American Mathematical Society. He not only supervised the research work of male students but also of female students. He claims to have been taken by surprise on service of notice dated 6-5-2014 from the Chairperson, Women's Cell, NEHU. The petitioner appeared before the Women's Cell on 7-5-2014, but he was not supplied the copy of the complaint nor any supporting materials for making the allegations against him. Even the names of witnesses who claimed that the petitioner misconducted himself were also not disclosed. Even the findings of the preliminary report were not made available. Thereafter, he was served another notice on 15-5-2014, issued by the Chairperson, Women's Cell, of the University asking him to appear in person on 19-5-2014. Thus, he again appeared on 19-5-2014 but again he was not given any details regarding the complaint made against him. Thereafter, vide letter with reference No. F. 17-269/Estt.II/2012-7991, dated 9-6-2014, he was informed that one of his research scholars had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against him. Thus, he was placed under suspension pending conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner challenged the suspension order by way of WP(C) No. 226 of 2014. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:-

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner was thus furnished the following documents: