- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
ANAND VISWANATH v. MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, Anand Viswanath, was employed as an Associate Professor at Government College, Munnar before his retirement. He suspected five female students of examination malpractice and reported them to the competent authorities, resulting in an enquiry that found two students guilty. Subsequently, the five students filed complaints alleging that the petitioner had sexually harassed them. This led to a university enquiry culminating in the preparation of Ext.P8 report. The petitioner contends that Ext.P8 was prepared without his knowledge and that a further committee of Syndicate Members produced Ext.P12 after recording the complainants' statements. He refused to furnish a statement during this process, alleging the proceedings were illegal. Ext.P12 was settled by an enquiry commission, which led to Ext.P13 proceedings recommending government action against him. The petitioner challenged Exts.P12 and P13 through this writ petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Ext.P12 and Ext.P13 reports, prepared by the University and enquiry commissions, can be the basis for any punitive action against the petitioner without a proper statutory enquiry under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act (POSH Act).
- Whether the enquiry procedures followed by the University comply with the legal standards established by the Supreme Court regarding sexual harassment allegations against teachers.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner alleges Ext.P8 report was prepared without his knowledge.
- Ext.P12 was settled by an incompetent enquiry commission.
- He refused to give a statement in the subsequent enquiry as he considered the proceedings illegal and unlawful.
- He prays for setting aside Exts.P12 and P13, which have led to recommendations for action against him.
Respondents' Arguments
- There were three reports: Ext.P3 (enquiry into students' malpractice), Ext.P8 (report on complaints against petitioner), and Ext.P12 (result of investigation by a Commission of Syndicate Members).
- Ext.P12 and Ext.P13 have not yet resulted in any punitive action against the petitioner; the matter has only been referred to the Government for further action.
- The petitioner was enquired into by a Committee constituted under the POSH Act, but no final report or order has been issued.
- Ext.P12 and Ext.P13 are internal enquiry reports and recommendations and do not establish guilt.
- Ext.P13 relates mostly to the students' malpractice allegations and not to the sexual harassment charges against the petitioner.
- They pray for dismissal of the writ petition.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vijayakumaran C.P. (Dr.) v. Central University of Kerala and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 426] | The manner in which sexual harassment imputations against a teacher must be considered and concluded, including that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report under the POSH Act is not solely sufficient for punishment and a proper enquiry must be completed. | The Court relied on this precedent to hold that Ext.P12, being an internal report not resulting from a statutory enquiry, cannot alone justify any punitive action against the petitioner. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the petitioner was subjected to multiple enquiries following complaints from five students alleging sexual harassment after he reported their examination malpractice. The Court emphasized the settled law from the Supreme Court that an ICC report under the POSH Act is insufficient on its own to impose punishment and that a proper statutory enquiry must be completed. Ext.P12 was found to be an internal enquiry conducted without the petitioner’s participation and not under the statutory scheme. Consequently, Ext.P12 cannot form a basis for any detriment to the petitioner. Ext.P13 primarily deals with the students' malpractice allegations and only tangentially references the petitioner without linking it to the sexual harassment charges. Since no final report or punitive action has been taken against the petitioner, and the enquiry under the POSH Act is still underway, the Court declined to consider the matter on merits further. The Court allowed the competent authorities to proceed with any lawful action subject to applicable limitations but clarified that no adverse action should be taken solely based on Ext.P12.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is closed with liberty to the competent authorities to initiate and complete any legally permissible action against the petitioner, subject to limitation.
The Court clarified that no adverse consequences can be imposed on the petitioner solely on the basis of Ext.P12, as it is an internal report not resulting from a proper statutory enquiry. The decision does not set any new precedent but confirms that internal reports under the POSH Act are insufficient for punishment without completion of a statutory enquiry. The direct effect is that the petitioner is protected from any immediate detriment based on these internal reports, while allowing lawful processes to continue.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 26TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 12545 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ANAND VISWANATH
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.RAYAPPAN VADHYAR, RETIRED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, GOVT. COLLEGE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD, RESIDING AT 259-1
22 ACRE, MICHELE GIRI, MISSION VAYAL ROAD, MARAYUR
POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685620.
BY ADVS.
JEENA JOSEPH
G.DAMODARA PANICKER
RESPONDENTS:
1 MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY
PRIYADARSINI HILLS P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTER.
2 THE PRINCIPAL
GOVERNMENT COLLEGE, MUNNAR, PIN-685612.
3 DR.AJI C.PANICKER,
ENQUIRY COMMISSION, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY,
KOTTAYAM, PIN-686560, REPRESENTED THROUGH REGISTRAR
M.G.UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSINI HILLS, KOTTAYAM,
PIN-686560.
BY ADV SURIN GEORGE IPE
SMT.PARVATHY K. - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
1
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, before his retirement, was working as an Associate Professor in the services of the Government College, Munnar.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, since the facts are not greatly in dispute, the petitioner suspected five girl students of malpractice in examination and reported it to the competent Authorities. This led to an enquiry against them, finding that two had committed such malpractice. He says that, however, as an afterthought and to cause vengeance on him, the five girl students then made a complaint against him, alleging that he had sexually harassed them; and that this led to an enquiry being conducted against him by the University, which culminated in Ext.P8 report.
3. The petitioner alleges that Ext.P8 report was prepared behind his back and that subsequently, the respondent - Mahatma Gandhi University (M.G.University), appears to have constituted a Committee of their Syndicate Members, who made a further report, namely Ext.P12, allegedly after recording the statements of the five complainants. He says that he was also asked to furnish a statement, which he refused because the proceedings against him was illegal and unlawful. He says that, nevertheless, Ext.P12 has
2
now been settled by an incompetent Enquiry Commission and that it has led to Ext.P13 proceedings of the M.G. University, recommending the Government to take necessary action against him. He thus prays that Exts.P12 and P13 be set aside.
4. I have heard Smt.Jeena Joseph - learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Surin George Ipe - learned Standing Counsel for the M.G.University and Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.
5. Sri.Surin George Ipe answered the afore allegations of the petitioner saying that there were totally three reports obtained by the University into the allegations and contra-allegations of the petitioner and the five girl students. He pointed out that Ext.P3 was the first enquiry report with respect to the allegations made by the petitioner against the five girl students of malpractice in examinations; while Ext.P8 was the subsequent report submitted to the Vice-Chancellor, pursuant to the complaint of the five students against him. He then showed me that Ext.P12 was the result of a consequential necessary action, after causing an investigation by a Commission of two Syndicate Members. He submitted that these reports have not been yet culminated in any action to the detriment of the petitioner and that the University has only referred the
3
matter to the Government for appropriate action against him. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
6. Smt.Parvathy K. - learned Government Pleader, however, had a different spin to the tale, saying that, in fact, the petitioner was enquired into by a Committee constituted under the provisions of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act ('POSH Act'), however, admitting that no final report has yet been settled or orders issued against him. She thus added that the petitioner's challenge to Exts.P12 and P13 is without any purpose because they are only internal enquiry reports and recommendations; and that, in any event, Ext.P13 does not reflect any guilt on his part in the sexual harassment allegation, but relates more to the malpractice allegedly committed by the five girl students. She also thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
7. I have considered the afore submissions and have also gone through the various materials on record.
8. Before I proceed further, I must remind everyone that law has now been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Vijayakumaran C.P. (Dr.) v. Central University of Kerala and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 426], qua the manner in which sexual harassment imputations against a teacher will have to be
4
considered and concluded. The said judgment makes it incontestable that even the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), under the 'POSH Act', would not be solely sufficient to impose punishment upon the accused and that a proper enquiry under its provisions will have to be taken forward and completed.
9. That said, in the case at hand, Ext.P12 would perspicuously show that the statements of the complainant students were taken behind the back of the petitioner and was then asked to make his statement, which he refused saying that he has already made it at the time when earlier proceedings were completed. Obviously, Ext.P12 is not the result of an enquiry under the statutory Scheme; but, at the best, is only an internal one, which may or may not have found guilt against him.
10. Therefore, Ext.P12 on its own cannot be the basis on which any detriment can be imposed upon the petitioner; and I am consequently of the view that petitioner need not be concerned about its contents because any punishment can be imposed upon him only through a proper enquiry, which the learned Government Pleader says is still underway.
11. As regards Ext.P13, there can be no doubt that it reflects
5
mostly on the allegations against the five students of examination malpractice; though it has a passing reference that the role of the petitioner and another teacher is also suspected. This does not mean that the allegation against the petitioner in Ext.P13 has anything to do with the sexual harassment charges against him, though this Court is not in a position to understand its meaning or tenor any further.
12. Nevertheless, it would not be necessary for this Court to continue to consider this case on its merits any further because, as I have already said above, Ext.P12 on its own cannot result in any detriment to the petitioner and this is affirmed by both Sri.Surin George Ipe and Smt.Parvathy K.
In the afore circumstances, leaving liberty to the competent Authorities to initiate and complete any action against the petitioner as may be legally permitted, subject to limitation - if applicable, I close this writ petition; however, clarifying that no rigour can be brought against the petitioner solely on account of Ext.P12.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/19.8
6
ACT BEFORE THE PUBLIC RELATIONS OFFICER
OF THE M.G. UNIVERSITY.
EXHIBIT P15 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY OBTAINED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 9.11.2020 UNDER THE
RTI ACT.
8
Alert