Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
AMRITA SINHA, J.
Angshuman Kar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of West Bengal and Others – Respondents
W.P.A. No. 8018 of 2020, W.P.A. No. 11995 of 2021
Decided On : 07-09-2021
Service - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Sexual harassment at workplace - Recalling the order of debarment - during the pendency of proceedings the Council is unable to withdraw the order debarring him from all examinations and academic activities of the University.
Finding of the Court:
Admittedly there is no complaint from the aggrieved person. On the contrary, the alleged aggrieved person has categorically made her mind clear that, neither she, nor her parents are eager to proceed with the matter. Incidentally, the alleged incident took place in the year 2018 or prior thereto, when the student was studying in the University. The student has passed out from the University in the year 2018, but for strange reasons, no complaint was lodged either by the student or any competent person on her behalf within the time as specified in the said Act and the corresponding Rules. After lapse of about two years the incident surfaced, that too, at the behest of some organization/students’ union. Neither the students’ union nor any of its members have obtained consent from the concerned student prior to proceeding with the matter. The complainants do not have any personal knowledge of the alleged incident - The allegations against the petitioner have criminal connotations. No complaint was ever lodged before the police by any person alleging the incident. Without being convinced and satisfied with the documents, the University ought not to have initiated any proceeding against the petitioner.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
AMRITA SINHA, J.
1. The petitioner is a professor in the Department of English and Culture Studies in the University of Burdwan. He is in service of the University since 2002. By an order dated 9th September, 2020 the Registrar (Officiating) of the University notified that pursuant to the resolution of the Executive Council on 8th September, 2020 the petitioner is debarred from all examinations and academic activities of the University, with immediate effect.
2. The petitioner made an application before the University praying for recalling the order of debarment. The Registrar (Officiating) by a letter dated 26th September, 2020 intimated the petitioner that the Executive Council resolved that during the pendency of proceedings the Council is unable to withdraw the order debarring him from all examinations and academic activities of the University. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being WPA 8018 of 2020 inter-alia praying for setting aside the order of debarment and an order of injunction restraining the authority from proceeding with the inquiry as reflected in the charge-sheet.
3. On 25th September, 2020 the petitioner was informed that the University proposed to hold an inquiry against him. The Article of Charges along with list of supporting documents was forwarded to him. The petitioner was directed to submit his representation in his defence.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had sexually harassed a student of the English Department (MA) 2016-2018 over a period and thereafter intimidated her so that she did not lodge any complaint against him. The said act was unbecoming of a teacher and he seriously breached the trust which constitutes grave misconduct. Further allegation was that the audio conversation between the professor and the student went viral in different media including social media. The said heinous act has caused disrepute to the esteemed institution as well as to the teachers’ community at large adversely affecting the sanctity of the educational institution.
5. The statement of imputation of charge in support of the Articles of Charge mentions that the University received mail from the Head, Department of English and Culture Studies, University of Burdwan wherein allegation of sexual harassment was intimated and it was also communicated that the student sought help from two other professors of the English Department. It was alleged that the petitioner intimidated her to stop her from lodging any complaint against him. It was further alleged that the conversation between the petitioner, his wife and the student reveals that the petitioner threatened the student for causing detriment to her career.
6. The specific case of the petitioner is that as there was no formal complaint of sexual harassment against him in terms of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ and the corresponding Rules accordingly, issuance of charge-sheet was bad ab initio.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Woman Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations, 2015’ has laid down the procedure for inquiring into the allegation of sexual harassment. The University could not have bypassed the aforesaid provision and issued charge-sheet against him. According to the petitioner there was an element of malice/mala fide and the language of the charge-sheet reflected the closed mind-set of the authority. The petitioner allege bias, motivated and pre-determined mind-set of the authority.
8. Initially the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) was not a party in the writ petition but subsequently pursuant to the leave granted by the Court, ICC has been impleaded as respondent.
9. During hearing of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
