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