Facts
The facts of the present case are such that the Petitioner is a teaching faculty at Madras Christian College (Respondent no. 1). The Petitioner, along with seven other faculty members were in charge of a trip that took place from 09.01.2019 to 14.01.2019, subsequent to which, sexual harassment allegations were received by the college against the Petitioner and another faculty member, Dr. Raveen. The College, after conducting an inquiry issued a warning to the Petitioner and further instructed that he will not be given any paper-evaluation and internal examination work, along with the condition that he will not be allowed to accompany students on trips for the next three years.
Arguments from the Petitioner
It was put down by the Petitioner that the written communication was in the form of a complaint given by 34 students against Dr. Raveen and against him, and that all the allegations were raised only as against Dr. Raveen, with his name added in the capacity of supportive conduct.
Further, the Petitioner has alleged that the inquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee was unfair, and was in complete violation of the principles of natural justice. The Petitioner states that he was not allowed to stay in the hall during the inquiry of the girl students. Further, since the petitioner had sought copies of the statement of complaints and statements made by the female faculty, which were provided to him only after the inquiry was completed on 17.04.2019, instead of being provided at the beginning of the investigation. Thus, the Petitioner filed a response asserting that the ICC’s procedure violates the principles of natural justice and contravenes Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.
Thus, the Petitioner, in the present writ petition, has asked for the quashing of the “Finding of Fact” report of the ICC, along with the quashing of the second show cause notice of the college.
Discussion and Observations
The Hon’ble High Court found justification in the ICC’s action on the grounds that if the students who filed complaints against the Petitioner saw him in the very same room, they would likely become frightened and unable to speak the whole truth, leaving the Committee unaware of the allegations against the Petitioner and Dr. Raveen. In light of this, the Court is of the opinion that the Committee did not violate the principles of natural justice in its conduct of the investigation and that the Committee's report is sound.
Further, to refute the claims of the Petitioner that the college cannot take action against him, purely on the basis of the inquiry report, while the service rules exist for the college, the court stated that reading the contested show cause notice revealed that the College has a Board of Directors to investigate all of these issues. The Board not only reviewed the ICC report but also reviewed the petitioner's past records and determined that there were no mitigating circumstances in favor of the Petitioner. From this, it can be inferred that the Petitioner, along with Dr. Raveen, maybe a recurrent participant in such activities. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner halted the College's next move following the issuance of the show cause notice, and it cannot be said that the College acted solely on the basis of the Committee's report.
The court relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and anr. vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana to state that no writ petition can lie against a charge sheet or show-cause notice, as at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature.
Conclusion
The court recommended taking the affected girls for counseling in order to help them overcome the volatile experiences they have had. The court quoted Gandhi and Dr. Radhakrishnan to emphasize the role of teachers in our society and the need for morality and ethics on their part. The court thus concluded that there is no justification for interfering with the Fact Finding Report and the second show cause notice, as any further action taken in response to the show cause notice will only reveal the truth. In light of this, the Court dismissed the writ petition for the lack of merit.
The court also went on to opine that as long as a religion is practiced in streets as opposed to its worship places, such devastation as in the present case will continue to occur and spread. Interestingly, the court also stated the necessity of asking ourselves whether the laws made for the protection of women are being invoked by women for genuine reasons. It stated that women will find it difficult to resist the temptation to "teach a lesson" to the male members and will file frivolous and false cases if certain laws that facilitate access to women lend themselves to misuse.
The court warned the government against misusing the legal protections afforded to women, concluding that it was time for the government to consider amending these laws to prevent their misuse and protect the interests of innocent men too.
Comments