I. Ismail v. K. Shameem Rani And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant joined the second respondent college as an Assistant Professor in 1978, became a Professor in 1988, and was appointed Principal in 1999. On 30-8-2003, a charge-memo containing 31 allegations—nine of which pertained to harassment, including sexual harassment—was served on him. A retired District Judge conducted an enquiry and found most charges proved. Acting on the report, the college removed the appellant from service on 2-12-2005.

The appellant initially challenged the removal order in the High Court, but withdrew that writ after a newly constituted governing body reinstated him on 29-6-2006. Subsequent public-interest litigation and a separate writ by the first respondent led a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, on 30-9-2009, to annul the reinstatement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s special-leave petitions on 25-1-2010 but permitted him to renew his challenge to the original removal order.

The appellant then filed WP (MD) No. 1132 of 2010; a Single Judge set aside the removal on the ground that no committee compliant with Vishaka guidelines had been formed. On 9-2-2011, a Division Bench reversed that decision, restored the removal order, and later dismissed a review petition on 30-6-2014. The present appeals before the Supreme Court challenged both the 2011 judgment and the 2014 review order.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Supreme Court should condone an inordinate delay of 1186 days in filing the special-leave petitions.

Whether the order dated 2-12-2005 removing the appellant from service was legally sustainable despite alleged non-compliance with the Vishaka guidelines and other procedural objections.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241	Mandates constitution of a committee to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace.	The Single Judge had relied on the absence of a Vishaka-compliant committee to set aside the removal; the Division Bench—and, implicitly, the Supreme Court—did not accept that as a basis to overturn the removal order.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241

Mandates constitution of a committee to inquire into allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace.

The Single Judge had relied on the absence of a Vishaka-compliant committee to set aside the removal; the Division Bench—and, implicitly, the Supreme Court—did not accept that as a basis to overturn the removal order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court identified a “gross delay” of approximately 3½ years (1186 days) in filing the special-leave petitions and found that the appellant offered “no explanation much less cogent explanation” for this delay. Consequently, the Court declined to condone the delay.

Even assuming the petitions were timely, the Court examined the merits and found none warranting interference. It noted that:

The High Court’s Division Bench had “elaborately considered” all issues, including res judicata, and upheld the removal order.

No legal infirmity was apparent in the High Court’s conclusion that most charges—particularly those involving sexual harassment—were proved and that the penalty of removal was appropriate.

Therefore, the appeals failed both procedurally (delay) and substantively (lack of merit).

Holding and Implications

APPEALS DISMISSED on the grounds of inordinate delay and absence of merit; no order as to costs.

The dismissal leaves intact the Division Bench’s decision restoring the appellant’s removal from service. The ruling resolves the dispute between the parties but does not articulate new legal principles beyond reiterating established standards for condonation of delay and review of disciplinary findings.

I. Ismail v. K. Shameem Rani And Another

Chockalingam Nagappan, J.— Leave granted. These appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 9-2-2011 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in K. Shameem Rani v. I. Ismail 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2609 and order dated 30-6-2014 passed in I. I. Ismail v. K. Shameem Rani 3021.

2. The facts in brief are as follows: the appellant joined the second respondent College as Assistant Professor in the year 1978 and was promoted as Professor in the year 1988. He was appointed as Principal in the year 1999. A charge memo containing 31 charges was served on the appellant on 30-8-2003. The first 9 charges related to harassment including sexual harassment based on the complaint given by the first respondent and other charges related to misuse of power, insubordination and misappropriation, etc.

3. A retired District Judge was appointed as enquiry officer and after a detailed inquiry, he submitted report holding that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved except Charges 4, 10 to 15, 23 and 25. After following the procedure an order of removal dated 2-12-2005 was passed by the second respondent College and the appellant challenged the said order in WP No. 11618 of 2005 before the High Court. In the meanwhile, new governing body for the second respondent College was constituted on 25-6-2006 and it passed resolution on 29-6-2006 and ordered to reinstate the appellant with consequential benefits. The appellant rejoined the service and withdrew his writ petition on 12-7-2006.

4. An old student of the second respondent College filed writ petition by way of public interest questioning the order of reinstatement of the appellant and the first respondent herein also filed another writ petition challenging the reinstatement and both the writ petitions were heard by the Division Bench of the High Court along with another writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 21-7-2008 of the management accepting his voluntary retirement request. By common judgment dated 30-9-2009 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 1559, the Division Bench dismissed the public interest writ petition as well as the writ petition filed by the appellant and allowed the writ petition filed by the first respondent herein and set aside the order of reinstatement of the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred special leave petitions in I.S. Ismail v. K. Shameen Rani 2010 SCC OnLine SC 11, “The SLPs are dismissed. The petitioner submits that he had challenged the order of dismissal dated 2-12-2005 in a writ petition, that when the order dated 29-5-2006 was passed reinstating him, that as the impugned order has set aside the order dated 29-5-2006, he is without remedy. This submission has no basis. As the petitioner states that he withdrew the writ petition challenging the order dated 2-12-2005 in view of the order dated 29-5-2006, having regard to the fact that the order dated 29-5-2006 is now set aside, it is open to the petitioner to renew his challenge to the order dated 2-12-2005 in accordance with law.” and this Court dismissed the petitions on 25-1-2010. However, the appellant was granted liberty to renew his challenge to the order dated 2-12-2005 in accordance with law.

5. The appellant filed writ petition in WP (MB) No. 1132 of 2010 challenging the removal order dated 2-12-2005 and the Single Judge by order dated 21-4-2010 WP (MD) No. 1132 of 2010, order dated 21-4-2010 (Mad) allowed the writ petition on the short ground that the committee had not been constituted as per the judgment of this Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) 6 SCC 241 , 1997 SCC (Cri) 932 to consider the charge of sexual harassment in the workplace.

6. The first respondent herein challenged the said order by preferring writ appeal in K. Shameem Rani v. I. Ismail 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2609 and the Division Bench of the High Court held that most of the charges including sexual harassment were found proved by the enquiry officer and the report was accepted by the management and having noticed the gravity of the proved charges, the governing body in its resolution dated 2-12-2005 passed the order of removal of the appellant from service and the issue has already been decided and the removal order was found valid and ordered to be restored by setting aside the order of the reinstatement and the said judgment of the earlier Division Bench has become final and consequently allowed the writ appeal and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant filed review petition and the same was dismissed. Challenging the impugned judgment 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2609 as well as the order 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 3021 in review these appeals have been preferred.

7. We heard the submissions of Mr Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr J.M. Khanna, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. There is inordinate delay of 1186 days in filing the SLPs. By order dated 29-8-2014 SLP (C) CC No. 13503 of 2014, order dated 29-8-2014 (SC) this Court issued notice on the application for condonation of delay as well as on the special leave petition. In the petition seeking for condonation of delay it is stated that the Division Bench of the High Court rendered its judgment dated 9-2-2011 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 2609, and then the appellant filed review petition and that also came to be dismissed 2014 SCC OnLine Mad 3021 and hence the delay has occurred in filing the SLPs. There is gross delay of almost 3½ years in challenging the judgment rendered in the writ appeal and no explanation much less cogent explanation has been given by the appellant. There is no reason to condone the delay. Even otherwise on merits also no case is made out for interference by this Court. The Division Bench of the High Court has elaborately considered the issues including the issue of res judicata and concluded that the order of removal of the appellant dated 2-12-2005 is proper and valid and upheld the same. We find no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment.

9. The appeals are dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits. No costs.

Civil Appeals Nos. 9149-50 of 2015, decided on October 30, 2015

I. Ismail v. K. Shameem Rani And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

I. Ismail v. K. Shameem Rani And Another

Comments