The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the University of Delhi's imposition of compulsory retirement on a professor found guilty of sexual harassment, holding that the punishment was not arbitrary, impermissible, or shocking to the conscience.
The writ petition was dismissed against the compulsory retirement of the respondent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Date of decision: 2nd September, 2011 W.P.(C) 6400/2011
Through: Ms. Jayshree Satpute, Adv.
Versus
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from University service on
him.
dismissal from service.
W.P.(C) No.6400/2011
Page 2 of 10
till what age, the respondent No.2 would have continued in the employment of the University but for being compulsorily retired. Though the counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent No.2 would have continued in employment till the age of 65 years i.e. for another 10 years but the counsel for the University appearing on advance notice informs that the retirement age is 62 years only, though there is a provision of extension till the age of 65 years.
have been harsher.
W.P.(C) No.6400/2011
Page 3 of 10
5. The findings of the Apex Complaints Committee were as under:
“Findings:
After a careful perusal of the statements of the complainant and the accused, statements of witnesses, confidential records of Hindi department and other documents, the SC (Sub Committee) would like to observe the following:
The SC finds Prof. Tiwari, the accused, guilty of sexually harassing Ms. Meenakshi, the complainant. By his verbal and physical conduct of explicitly sexual nature, he created a hostile environment for the complainant. However, it finds no evidence to support Ms. Meenakshi‟s claim that victimized her or committed act that have an adverse effect on the academic prospects of the complainant.
The SC would like to express its deep concern over the fact that a senior teacher of the University entered into an explicitly sexual relationship with a student of the department.
The conduct of a teacher in an academic institution, especially a prestigious institution like Delhi University, should be exemplary. If senior teachers find it fit to develop sexual relationships with their students, the atmosphere of the University would get vitiated and the University would fail to provide a safe and secure environment for girl students to pursue their academic goals. The conduct of Prof. Tiwari is definitely not acceptable. The SC is also anguished to find that Prof. Tiwari deems it fit to record his conversations with a research scholar at his residence without the consent of the concerned scholar. The relationship of a teacher and students should be based on trust and it is extremely regrettable that students be dragged into sordid affairs of the teachers. Prof. Tiwari‟s conduct has been extremely objectionable and undesirable.
At the same time, the SC must also place on record its disapproval of the conduct of the complainant in not only making patently false allegations against two other teachers of the University. Prof. Gautam and Prof. Pachauri. While the SC fully understands that
W.P.(C) No.6400/2011
Page 4 of 10
complainants in sexual harassment cases usually feel completely (and many times, rightly) beleaguered by the support that the accused seems to get in the workplace, the SC did not find any reason why Ms. Meenakshi should feel this with respect to Prof. Gautam and Prof. Pachauri, who were fully cooperative with the SC.
The SC would also like to place on record its disapproval of the fact that confidentiality in this matter was not maintained and the complainant and her supporters contributed to its publicity actively. The complainant has submitted the full details of this case not only to the SC but also to various other authorities. Surprisingly, the complainant submitted copies of her diaries along with a detailed statement first to the Vice Chancellor‟s office during the course of the enquiry. It may also be noted that during the enquiry, pamphlets were distributed and agitations were organized in support of the complainant. The Committee feels that this kind of public trial of issues of sexual harassment vitiates the atmosphere and makes it difficult to conduct a fair enquiry. The SC also notes with regret that the complainant has made blatantly false statements about her interaction with the Committee members.
The SC would like to express deep concern over the alleged recordings of telephone conversations between Prof. Tiwari and Ms. Meenakshi by a former student of Hindi on Delhi University and its subsequent use to pressurize Prof. Tiwari into securing a job for himself and some other favours. If true, this is a very serious matter and it would be extremely undesirable that any person involved in this affair occupies a teaching position in DU. It may be noted that Prof. Tiwari‟s allegations on this issue are corroborated by Prof. Abhai Maurya, a former Professor of DU. The SC strongly feels that the University should institute an enquiry into these allegations and take appropriate action expeditiously”.
W.P.(C) No.6400/2011
Page 5 of 10
upon challenge thereto being made, the High Court directed the reinstatement in service though without back wages. The Supreme Court
W.P.(C) No.6400/2011
Page 6 of 10
held that there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment imposed by the departmental authorities. It was further held that the High Court cannot function as Appellate Authority and substitute its own conclusion as to the guilt of the delinquent and should not normally interfere with the penalty / punishment imposed, unless punishment imposed is impermissible or shocks the conscience of the Court. Reference in this regard may also be made to Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611 laying down that judicial review though generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the decision making process and the question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the authority empowered to so impose the
punishment nevertheless held that the punishment has to suit the offence and the offender; it should not be vindictive or unduly harsh; it should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. It was further held that the doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the
W.P.(C) No.6400/2011
Page 7 of 10
authority, if is in outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction.
9. Supreme Court in Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and
Anr VS Munna Lal Jain (2005) 10 SCC 84 further observed that where punishments in disciplinary cases are challenged as "arbitrary" under Article 14, the question will be whether the administrative order is "rational" or "reasonable" and the test then is the Wednesbury test; the courts would then be confined only to a secondary role and will only have to see whether the administrator has done well in his primary role, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors into consideration or whether his view is one which no reasonable person could have taken. It was yet further held that the court will not apply proportionality as a primary reviewing court because no issue
of fundamental freedoms nor of discrimination under Article 14 applies in such a case. It was yet further held that the courts while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, has
normally to remit the matter for a fresh decision as to the quantum of W.P.(C) No.6400/2011 Page 8 of 10
punishment and only in rare cases where there has been long delay can the court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment."
reached and the facts are not such from which it can be said that only the W.P.(C) No.6400/2011 Page 9 of 10
harshest punishment of dismissal from service should have been imposed. No elements of irrationality or perversity are found, to invite interference.
No case of violation of Wednesbury principles is made out.
notice of any challenge has been received. In the circumstances, while dismissing the petition, it is clarified that in the event of the respondent No.2 challenging the order of the Executive Council, it shall be open to the petitioner to in opposition thereto take the pleas as have been taken in this writ petition.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2011 „gsr‟
W.P.(C) No.6400/2011
Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent constitutes perversity warranting judicial interference under the Wednesbury principle.
Whether the quantum of punishment by the Executive Council was shockingly disproportionate and impermissible given the Apex Complaints Committee's findings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. ChopraReferred¶16
Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 · Who else cites this
Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶49
Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611 · Who else cites this
Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Anr VS Munna Lal JainReferred¶54
Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Anr VS Munna Lal Jain (2005) 10 SCC 84 · Who else cites this
MEENAKSHI
UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
