Dr Vijayakumaran CPV vs Central University of Kerala and others
Civil Appeal 777/2020
Justices A M Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari
Facts of the case:
On 5.6.2017, respondent No. 1 University sent an offer letter to the appellant for being appointed to the post of Associate Professor in the Department of Hindi.
A formal written contract was entered into between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 – University on 12.6.2017.
After being appointed as Associate Professor in the Department of Hindi with effect from 12.6.2017, the appellant assumed office. But soon thereafter, a sexual harassment complaint alleging serious misconduct and abusive behaviour was filed against him by a third-semester student on 13.7.2017 followed by two other complaints dated 14.7.2017 filed by 16 students and 29.8.2017 filed by 23 students. Hence, the University constituted ICC.
From the perusal of the termination order dated 30.11.2017 issued by the Vice-Chancellor, it is evident that the same was issued in the backdrop of the Internal Complaints Committee report.
The appellant had assailed the impugned termination order dated 30.11.2017 being ex-facie stigmatic.
The Internal Complaints Committee had recommended proceeding against the appellant appropriately but the Executive Council proceeded under the mistaken belief that in terms of clause 7 of the contract, it was open to the Executive Council to terminate the services of the appellant without a formal regular inquiry as per the service rules.
The allegations to be inquired into by such Committee being of “sexual harassment” defined in Section 2(n) read with Section 3 of the 2013 Act and being a serious matter bordering on criminality, it would certainly not be advisable to confer the benefit on such employee by merely passing a simple order of termination. Such complaints ought to be taken to its logical end by not only initiating departmental or regular inquiry as per the service rules, but also followed by other actions as per law.
The court held that "A priori, we have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned termination order dated 30.11.2017 is illegal being ex-facie stigmatic as it has been issued without subjecting the appellant to a regular inquiry as per the service rules.On this conclusion, the appellant would stand reinstated, but whether he should be granted back wages and other benefits including placing him under suspension and proceeding against him by way of departmental or regular inquiry as per the service rules, is, in our opinion, a matter to be taken forward by the authority concerned in accordance with law."
Question arises out of this judgement by Supreme Court:
Just because service rules were not followed during his termination is enough to forget about his harassment offence and order his reinstatement into the institution?
How could Supreme Court allow his reinstatement when clearly held liable for his sexual harassment allegations ?
Doesn't this judgement seems like a joke after accused found guilty of committing sexual harassment in the university during his tenure ?
Is it that easy for accused person to get away using this loopholes in the investigation procedure ?
Cases that were referred during pronouncing this judgement:
Indra Pal Gupta vs. Managing Committee Model Inter College, Thora (1984) 3 SCC 384
Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors (1999) 3 SCC 60
Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Anr (2002) 1 SCC 520
Conclusion: All of these cases pointing towards reinstatement after appellant received termination from their respective institutions but in the present case, it involves "sexual harassment" in the institution which makes it volatile in nature and should be taken care of accordingly.
But Supreme Court decided to take lenient view and focused more on the loopholes which was argued in front of learned judges about appellant being terminated without following the service rules and setting aside the fact that he committed sexual harassment in the institution which got him terminated in the first place and it's so horrific for future female students because his reinstatement could mean he could repeat his behavior without getting its proper repercussions.
Yorumlar