Relationship Began Before She Took Admission: MP High Court Reinstates Professor Accused Of Sexually Harassing Student

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the termination of a professor from the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University accused of sexually harassing and exploiting a female student, after noting that the relationship between the two was going on prior to her admission in 2021. 

Quashing the charges of sexual harassment, the court directed his reinstatement into service "forthwith". It however said that he would remain under suspension till fresh order is passed as to charge pertaining to leaking of question paper to the student. 

Justice Vivek Jain observed that the "University had no business" to inquire into a relationship between the professor and complainant, once she stated that had been in a relationship since 2013, and she only became a student of the University in 2021. It also said whatever the petitioner and the complainant did in their private lives was 

The bench said:

"The University seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that the University had no business to inquire into the relationship between the petitioner and complainant once the complainant stated that relationship was going on since the year 2013 and she became a student of the University for the first time on 02.03.2021. What the petitioner being a married person and the complainant being a 30 year old married lady did in their private life, was not the lookout of the university in any manner whatsoever, once the relationship was being alleged to be going on since the year 2013 and sexual relations alleged to be going on since the year 2019. This was much prior to admission of the complainant in the University. This aspect of the matter has neither been looked into in the charge sheet nor in the inquiry report and nor in the order of the disciplinary authority".

The court observed that a handwritten complaint was filed in Hindi on 11.10.2021 and that the complainant appeared to be a married lady of 30 years of age. The complainant mentioned that she was raped in 2019 by the professor and that she had known the professor since 2013.

Perusing the complaint the court said:

"If this application of the complainant is taken to be true at its face value then at the most it can be a case of the petitioner getting a married lady with whom he is having some extra marital relationship admitted in the University in which he is already teaching. This complaint does not make it any case of harassment relating to workplace. The sexual exploitation as per this complaint was going on since many years prior to the complainant becoming student of the university and this entire complaint does not relate to a single allegation that the petitioner misused his position as Professor of the university to sexually exploit the complainant"

Background

The professor had challenged the order of the University's Executive Council dismissing him from service based on an inquiry report. The female student made a complaint to the Internal Complaint Committee (respondent no. 3) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act against the professor.

She claimed that she was sexually exploited by the professor while he was working as the Head of the Department of History at the University. 

The complaint alleged that the petitioner had committed rape on the said female student in 2019 and then he has been repeatedly sexually exploiting her and she has got pregnant many times. It was alleged that he had been exploiting her since 2019. 

The complainant claimed that even on the date of the complaint, she was pregnant. The ICC took up the matter and submitted a detailed report on March 4, 2022, wherein  complaint was held to be substantiated. Based on the recommendations of the ICC, a chargesheet was filed, and an Enquiry officer was appointed who held 6 charges to be proved. 

Findings

With respect to complainant's stance of being pregnant the court said:

"child was never born and as per the judgment of criminal Court placed in the file of this case, the Sessions Court has also not referred to any child being borne to the complainant or any pregnancy of the complainant. During the course of proceedings under POSH Act, the complainant when confronted with her pregnancy stated that the child got aborted. This itself raises suspicion on the contents of the complaint. She stated that on account of her relation with petitioner, her husband divorced her, but no Divorce decree has been placed on record".

Regarding the issue of necessary parties, the court observed that the ICC only had seven members out of which one member was on maternity leave, another was an assistant registrar, who was kept out of the proceedings. The court held that the ICC committee was 'utterly illegal', being constituted contrary to the provisions of UGC Regulations.

The court focused on another 'disturbing and strange fact' in the ICC report that all the pages were signed in blank in advance by two members before the printing of the report. The court held that the report of the ICC was 'nothing but a totally farce and bogus document' which cannot be relied upon.

"Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the ICC proceedings could not have been relied upon in any manner either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority to uphold the guilt of petitioner", it added. 

On the charge regarding professor being unreachable at his official address, the court observed that the professor was facing an FIR and sought bail from the High Court and the Supreme Court. The court noted that during this period, if the professor avoided arrest, it could not be considered misconduct by the University. Additionally, since the professor has been suspended since 2022, he could not be expected to attend duties. 

Regarding charge alleging that the professor had criticized the government in a social media post, the court said that it does not amount to misconduct and noted that the University neither exhibited such documents nor attached any evidence. 

On the charge alleging that the professor leaked the question paper to the complainant, the court said:

"In the opinion of this Court, this issue requires to be dealt with by the University authorities in detail by considering the fact that whether the question papers which are said to be leaked were framed by the petitioner and he was the paper setter of these question papers and further that whether the paper setter had shared the question papers with the petitioner and under what circumstances the petitioner came in possession of the question papers if these were not framed by him, if he was not the paper setter. The inquiry report is utterly silent on all these aspects. It is also to be assessed that whether there is academic practice in the University to share important questions before the examination which has also not been looked into in the impugned order or in the inquiry report in any manner".

The court opined that only this charge was made out against the petitioner however at present there was insufficient material against him. 

"...the impugned order of punishment deserves to be set aside. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority only in respect of charge No. 5 for which the authority would be at liberty to conduct fresh inquiry or if evidence is sufficient, to arrive at its own conclusion. Let the petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith and would remain under suspension till fresh order is passed as to charge No.5, as he was under suspension till date of earlier dismissal order," the court said. 

The plea was partly allowed. 

Case Title: X v Indira Gandhi National Tribal University [WP No. 10864-2023]

For Petitioner: Advocate Dinesh Upadhyay

For Respondents: Senior Advocate Ajay Pawar with Advocate Rahul Kumar Pathak 

Click here to read/download the Order