AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Valmiki J Mehta, J.
CM No. 16886/2013 (delay of 16 days) & 16888/2013 (delay in re-filing)
For the reasons stated in the applications, delay in filing and re-filing is condoned.
CMs stand disposed of.
CM No. 16887/2013 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
Review Petition No. 645/2013 in W.P. (C) 7592/2012
This is a review petition seeking review of the judgment dated 5.9.2013 by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the punishment imposed of removal from service was dismissed. The charge against the petitioner was of causing harassment including sexual harassment of one Ms. Kulsum Fatima, Assistant Professor.
Review is sought of the judgment dated 5.9.2013 on the ground that petitioner has come to know of the fact that an enquiry committee report on the complaint of Ms. Kulsum Fatima dated 13.10.2011 exonerated the petitioner, and this report was concealed from the petitioner, and therefore, the judgment needs to be reviewed because this additional document has now come to light.
The judgment passed by this Court on 5.9.2013 shows that against the petitioner the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 9.11.2012 pursuant not only to complaints dated 23.11.2011, 7.12.2011 but also other complaints made by Ms. Kulsum Fatima against the petitioner. During the course of the enquiry proceedings evidence was recorded in the form of statements both of the petitioner and Ms. Kulsum Fatima. Petitioner admitted to the facts which were alleged against him. Enquiry Officer thereafter gave a report pursuant to which a show-cause notice dated 1.10.2012 was issued. Petitioner responded to the show-cause notice by his representation dated 22.10.2012 and thereafter the impugned order of the disciplinary authority dated 9.11.2012 was passed.
In my opinion, the grounds on which review is sought of the judgment dated 5.9.2013, are wholly misconceived, for the following reasons:-
(i) The report which the petitioner states, was concealed from him is only a preliminary inquiry report and not a report of an enquiry officer in a disciplinary proceeding. Also, admittedly as argued before me, the report is based on the complaint dated 13.10.2011 whereas there were other additional complaints made by Ms. Kulsum Fatima including the complaints dated 23.11.2011 and 7.12.2011 and which were subject matter of examination in the disciplinary proceedings. The complainant also deposed on oath before the enquiry officer with respect to the various issues of harassment and sexual harassment not limited to the issues of the complaint dated 13.10.2011. Therefore, it is not correct to argue that because of the enquiry committee''s report which is now sought to be relied upon, the petitioner would stand exonerated, not only for the reason that the enquiry report relied upon by the petitioner in the review petition pertains to a different complaint which was not the subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings with the fact that the enquiry officer''s report pertains to other complaints, but also because of the fact that a preliminary enquiry report cannot be said to be in the nature of disciplinary proceeding.
(ii) The enquiry report which is now sought to be relied upon is alleged to have been concealed from the petitioner for sustaining the review petition, but, the issue of concealment does not arise for the reason that preliminary enquiry report is not the basis for proceeding against the petitioner and petitioner cannot be said to be prejudiced because the enquiry report which is now relied upon was not relied upon in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and nor can help to exonerate the petitioner. As already stated above, in any case, enquiry officer''s report pertains to the additional complaints than the complaint dated 13.10.2011, and which admittedly is the only subject matter of the preliminary enquiry report which is now relied upon by the petitioner.
(iii) Petitioner admitted in so many words by making a statement before the enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings to the facts which were alleged against him. Such admissions were relied upon by the enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings to impose the punishment of removal from services upon the petitioner. Therefore, nothing will turn upon the preliminary enquiry report which is now sought to be relied upon as a ground to review the judgment dated 5.9.2013.
Sexual harassment complaints in educational institutions, more so when done by persons in position of responsibility, are grave issues. Grave issues have to be dealt with seriously. Considering the entire facts and circumstances the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal from services, and some of which have been stated by me above. In view of the above, there is no ground to review the judgment dated 5.9.2013 and the review petition is therefore dismissed with costs of Rs. 40,000/-. Costs can be recovered by the respondent no. 1 in accordance with law.