Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3704
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.
Rajesh Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Board of Governors, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology and another - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 19080 of 2006
Decided On : 16-12-2025
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Srivastava, Arvind Srivastava, Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Manish Tandon, Rahul Srivastava, Shashi Nandan, Suneet Kumar
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Shivendu Ojha
Disciplinary action for misconduct must adhere to prescribed procedures, and while teachers are held to high moral standards, consensual relationships do not automatically justify dismissal.
Headnote:(A) State Universities Act, 1973 - Section 49-A and Section 49-D - University of Allahabad Statutes, 1976 - Disciplinary action against a Lecturer for misconduct involving a consensual relationship with a student. The court found that while the petitioner exhibited improper conduct as a teacher, the procedure for disciplinary proceedings was not properly followed, leading to a disproportionate punishment. (Paras 13, 20, 21)
(B) Principles of natural justice - The procedural safeguards for disciplinary inquiries were neglected, affecting the fairness of the proceedings. The commission’s inquiry was incomplete and did not allow for full cross-examination. (Paras 10, 14)
(C) Standard of morality required from a teacher - The court emphasized that while higher moral standards are expected from educators, the consensual nature of the relationship raised questions regarding the appropriateness of the disciplinary action taken. (Paras 19, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a Lecturer accused of misconduct related to a consensual relationship with a former student, resulting in disciplinary action and eventual dismissal. The complaint was filed after three years and coincided with the petitioner’s engagement to another woman. (Paras 1, 6, 18)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that while the petitioner’s actions were improper, the dismissal was deemed excessively harsh and the case should be reconsidered for appropriate punishment in line with the actual misconduct. (Paras 20, 23)
Issues: Whether the disciplinary procedures followed were adequate and whether consensual relationships warrant such severe penalties in educational contexts. (Paras 12, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The court criticized the lack of adherence to prescribed procedural safeguards in the inquiry while also recognizing the consensual nature of the relationship, leading to a conclusion that the dismissal was disproportionate given the circumstances. (Paras 20, 24)
Result: The impugned order of dismissal was modified, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration of appropriate punishment.
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Petitioner was a Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering in Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad. He joined the Institute on 31.03.1999. An Ex-student (Girl) of Institute made a written complaint dated 08.01.2003 addressed to the Director of Institute inter alia alleging therein that when she was a student of Master of Computer Education in the Institute from 1997-2000, petitioner has made physical relationship with her and she described an occurrence took place on 16.11.1999 that it was against her will. Thoughshe further stated that later on they had consensual physical relationship even after she left the Institute. A symbolic marriage was also took place between them but it appears that she being of a different religion, therefore, parents of petitioner did not allow to solemnize a proper marriage and thus their relationship was broken, therefore, she made a complaint that she was subjected to physical and emotional harassment.
2. On basis of said complaint, Director of Institute constituted a Five Members Committee and a show cause notice dated 10.01.2003 was issued to petitioner to submit reply to the complaint. A copy of complaint was admittedly served upon petitioner. A questionnaire was also submitted to petitioner. Petitioner thereafter submitted his reply that complainant was an student of petitioner between July, 1999 to June, 2000 and he admitted that it was a consensual relationship which developed during that period and continued even thereafter. They wanted to marry but due to different religion marriage could not take place.
3. On basis of record it appears that the Five Members Committee has not arrived to any conclusion and submitted a report that they do not have expertise to establish a fact that any rape was committed and that petitioner and complainant were in relationship even after complainant left the Institute and complaint was filed only when petitioner was engaged with some other girl in November, 2002. No specific conclusion was made in the report.
4. On basis of above inquiry petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 17.01.2003 and there was an observation in said order that a charge sheet will be issued shortly. Subsequently, a One Man Inquiry Commission was constituted by Institute headed by Justice N.L. Ganguly, Former Judge, Allahabad High Court, who issued notice dated 10.06.2003 to petitioner and sought reply and that petitioner can produce any evidence, oral or documentary. Petitioner thereafter submitted a detailed reply on 12.09.2003 and has appeared before One Man Inquiry Commission also. Complainant has also made a written statement before One Man Inquiry Commission. The Commission also recorded statements of few witnesses as well as took note of observations made by Five Members Committee. The Commission also framed certain issues for consideration and finally submitted a report dated 27.12.2023 whereby petitioner was found guilty of misconduct on ground that he has shown special favour with complainant, when she was a student in the Institute and his conduct as a Lecturer of Institute and having affair with his student was contrary to the tenets of relationship of student and Teacher. His act of physical relationship with his student was considered to be an immoral conduct and it was found to be contrary to the values of a Teacher in society and according to Section 49-A of the State Universities Act, 1973 and Clause 16.04 of the First Statutes, 1976 of University of Allahabad it was proposed that petitioner be terminated from services. For reference relevant part of One Man Commission’s report is reproduced hereinafter:
“I have considered the facts and circumstances in great details and I find that Mr. Rajesh Singh is guilty of misconduct on the ground that he had shown special favour with Ms. Valentina Kujur when she was student in the institute. He had shown special favour to her by giving h
