Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6723
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J
DR THELMA J TALLOO – Appellant
Versus
JESUS AND MARY COLLEGE & ANOTHER – Respondent
O.M.P. 150/2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Yasobant Das, Mr. Arunav Patnaik, Mr. Nirbhay Nitya Nanda
For the Respondents: Mr. Romy Chacko, Mr. Joe Sebastian, Mr. Akshat Singh, Mr. Ashwin Romy, Ms. Manisha Singh
A disciplinary committee's reliance on uncontroverted testimony and procedural fairness are adequate to uphold findings of misconduct against an academic under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Appeal against an award - Petition challenging the validity of disciplinary action based on bribery allegations against an academic - The petitioner claimed procedural improprieties, bias in committee composition, and denial of legal representation. The Court upheld that no procedural errors or bias were established; the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend herself. The Appeals Committee's findings were upheld as they were based on cogent evidence, and the penalty was deemed proportionate -
Result: Petition dismissed. (Paras 26, 36, 50, 55)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judgment procedure under section 34 of the act (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. allegations of misconduct and conspiracy (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. inquiry process and its fairness (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. outcomes of inquiry and subsequent appeal (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. challenges to appeal committee's findings (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. legal arguments by the petitioner (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. counterarguments by respondent no. 1 (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 8. submissions of respondent no. 2 (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 9. judicial review principles (Para 51 , 52) |
| 10. analysis of charge no. i (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 11. analysis of charge no. ii (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 12. analysis of charge no. iii (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 13. charges iv and v dropped (Para 68) |
| 14. petitioner's contentions dismissed (Para 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 15. conclusion on the merits of the case (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84) |
| 16. final judgment and disposition of the petition (Para 85 , 86) |
JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FACTUAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................... 2
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER ............................................................... 7
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 ............................................... 10
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 ............................................... 12
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS................................................................................ 13
On Charge No. I - Demand of Cash, Mobile Phone and Saree from Aakanksha Gulia .................................................................................................................... 14
On Charge No. II - Demand of an Inverter from Saraswati Chhabra ............. 18
On Charge No. III - Demand of String of Pearls and Diamond Earrings from Meghna Khanna.................................................................................................. 19
On Charge No. IV - Demand of Silver Accessory from Deepanjali Khurana . 22
On Charge No. V - Demand of Marks in Examination from Kalpana John... 22
On Additional Contentions of the Petitioner ..................................................... 22
CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 29
1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (for brevity “the Act”) challenging the Award dated 23.10.2012 passed by the Appeals Committee constituted under Clause 9 of Annexure to Ordinance XII of the University of Delhi.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Dr. Thelma J. Talloo (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) is a former Reader in the Commerce Department with Jesus and Mary College (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent No. 1”) affiliated with University of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent No. 2”).
3. The facts leading up to the filing of the present petition as per the petitioner are that in 1982, the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in the Department of Commerce at respondent No. 1. The petitioner had strained relations with the principal of the respondent No. 1 and some members of the administration, owing to her strong and bold stance on various issues.
4. In the academic year 2007-08, three students of the Second Year B.A. (P) course, namely, Akansha Gulia, Saraswati Chabbra and Sneha Jaichand, who were close friends, began to disrupt classes by their behaviour and frequently absenting themselves. When the petitioner sought to discipline them, they mocked her in class and started spreading false allegations against her. Despite repeated showdowns, their harassment continued. At the end of the academic year, both Akansha Gulia and Sneha Jaichand had shortage of attendance.
5. On 27.03.2008, Akansha Gulia repeatedly called the petitioner on her mobile phone at home, offering bribes in return for attendance. The petitioner rep
