Accused Employee's Right To Seek Legal Remedies Cannot Be Made A Disciplinary Charge: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition filed against an order of dismissal passed by a central university, which had removed a professor from service after conducting a departmental inquiry on multiple charges arising out of a complaint of alleged sexual exploitation.

A Bench comprising Justice Vivek Jain, while examining the legality of the disciplinary proceedings and the charges relied upon, held that “once there was a FIR against the petitioner and he had approached this court either for getting anticipatory bail or for quashing the FIR, it was a legal right given to the petitioner being accused in a criminal case and he need not have obtained the permission of the University to seek anticipatory bail”, stating that such a charge is “an illegal charge which contravenes the legal right of the accused in a criminal case to seek legal remedies”.

Advocate Dinesh Upadhyay represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Ajay Pawar appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

A handwritten complaint alleging sexual exploitation was submitted to the Internal Complaints Committee of the University against the petitioner-Professor. The Committee conducted an enquiry and submitted a report, based on which a charge-sheet was issued containing six articles of charge.

The articles of charge included allegations relating to sexual harassment, blackmail, absconding from police, leakage of question papers, criticism of authorities on social media, and approaching the High Court for anticipatory bail and for quashing of the FIR without prior permission of the University.

The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegations. A departmental enquiry was thereafter conducted, and the Enquiry Officer held that the charges proved. The Executive Council of the University accepted the enquiry report and passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner approached the High Court challenging the punishment imposed upon him.

Court’s Observation

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while noting that in judicial review, it does not sit as an appellate body over disciplinary findings, yet “where there is infact no evidence available against the workman i.e. in cases of no evidence the Courts and Tribunals have to step in to do justice between the parties and to save the workmen from oppressive practices of the employers.”

Upon examining the evidence relied on by the Enquiry Officer, the Court noted the absence of any material beyond the complainant’s statement. It held that the University failed to establish a case of workplace misconduct. These irregularities, the Court held, rendered the ICC report a “totally farce and bogus document which cannot be relied upon in any manner.”

The Court held that the ICC proceedings were unreliable due to improper constitution, lack of quorum and procedural irregularities. The Court found that the ICC had only seven members instead of the required nine under UGC Regulations, and two members did not participate; yet, no replacements were made. The report itself showed signatures taken on blank pages, with photocopied signatures of members on the final page.

The allegation of sexual exploitation was held to be outside the remit of the POSH Act, since even on the complainant’s own admission, the alleged relationship pre-dated her admission to the University by several years. On this basis, the Court held that the University had no jurisdiction to treat this as a workplace harassment case.

On the charge of approaching the High Court without permission, the Court categorically held that an accused has an absolute legal right to seek anticipatory bail or challenge an FIR, and no employer can demand prior permission for exercising constitutional or statutory remedies. The Court declared that such a charge is not only baseless but “illegal” as it violates a fundamental right available to any accused in criminal law.

The Court found no evidence supporting allegations of absconding, blackmail or misconduct on social media. The defence of the petitioner regarding the charge involving the sharing of questions with students, the Court noted, required further factual inquiry. Since these aspects were not properly considered, the Court held that only the allegation relating to the leakage of questions required fresh examination.

Conclusion

Partly allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the dismissal order, reinstated the petitioner into service and permitted the University to conduct a fresh inquiry limited only to the allegation of sharing of exam questions.

Until such inquiry is completed, the petitioner was ordered to be put under suspension.

Cause Title: Rakesh Singh (Professor) v. Indira Gandhi National Tribal University & Others

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate Dinesh Upadhyay

Respondents: Senior Advocate Ajay Pawar, assisted by Advocate Rahul Kumar Pathak

Click here to read/download Judgment