SILAJIT GUHA V. SIKKIM UNIVERSITY & ORS.
THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM: GANGTOK
WP(C) No. 30 of 2019
INTRODUCTION
In the present case, a writ petition was filed by a professor against whom a sexual harassment case was filed. Court disposing off the present writ petition, stayed the termination order dated 28.06.2019 till an appeal before the Executive Council is decided expeditiously.
FACTS OF THE CASE
A sexual harassment case was filed by a student, against a Professor employed in a department of Sikkim University. Internal Complaints committee (ICC) conducted the inquiry, based on which the executive council of the university imposed the major penalty of the termination of service with immediate effect.
Petitioner preferred a statutory appeal which is pending before the Executive Committee. The present Writ Petition however sought quashing of the show cause notice date 10.06.2019, the inquiry report dated 08.06.2019 and the order of termination dated 28.06.2019 and for various other consequential reliefs.
MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE CASE
The main argument of the petitioner is that the alleged act by the respondent no. 5 is beyond the definition of workplace hence ICC did not have the jurisdiction to examine the complaint. Petitioner also alleged that the termination order dated 28.06.2019 was illegal as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to represent his case.
DISCUSSIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
The High Court observed that in the cases where Internal Complaints Committee has made recommendations, an aggrieved party has a statutory right to prefer an appeal within thirty days from the date of recommendation as per Regulation 8(3) of UGC Regulations, which is quoted below:
Process of conducting Inquiry –
(3) The inquiry has to be completed within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the complaint. The inquiry report, with recommendations, if any, has to be submitted within ten days from the completion of the inquiry to the Executive Authority of the HEI. Copy of the findings or recommendations shall also be served on both parties to the complaint.
In the present case as well court observed that the petitioner has preferred an appeal on 01.07.2017 and the facts disclose that he could have done so on or before 08.07.2019. Thus, the impugned order of termination dated 28.06.2019 could has been stayed.
CONCLUSION
Court is, therefore, of the view that during the pendency of the appeal before the Executive Council, his termination order, bearing no. 201/2019 dated 28.06.2019, shall be kept on stay until the final decision in the pending appeal. The appeal before the Executive Council must be decided expeditiously after giving an opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
Court added that all issues and question which are open to challenge under the POSH Act and further taken in the appeal shall be decided by the executive Council in its jurisdiction as the Appellate Authority.
Lastly, court disposed off the present writ petition as an appeal is pending before the executive council.
Comments