IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.971 OF 2019 C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.972 OF 2019 (GM-RES) IN W.A.NO.971/2019 BETWEEN:
AMRITA S. NAIR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O M.P.SUDHIR KUMAR R/O E-1202, MANTRI TRANQUIL OFF KANAKPURA ROAD GUBBABALA VILLAGE BANGALORE – 560 061 ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI.ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. JANMEJAI SHUKLA S/O VINAY KUMAR SHUKLA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS R/O FLAT NO.S093 DLF WOODLAND HEIGHTS JIGANI LINK ROAD BANGALORE – 560 105 2. INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE CHRIST UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER DR.MAYAMMA JOSEPH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE – 560 029 3. INTERNAL COMPLAINTS APPELLATE COMMITTEE (ICAC) CHRIST UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DR.ANIL JOSEPH PINTO, REGISTRAR HOSUR ROAD SUDDANGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE – 560 029 4. CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) REP. BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR DR.MAYAMMA JOSEPH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE – 560 029 5. MR.TUSHAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS S/O SANJAY RATHI KATWARIA SATIA NEW DELHI – 110 016 (SRI.P.P.HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1 ... RESPONDENTS SRI.SIDDHARTH B.MUCHANDI, ADV. FOR R3 AND 4 R2 – SERVED R5 IS TREATED AS SERVED) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED IN W.P.NO.23039/2018 AND CONFIRM THE ORDERS DATED 11.04.2018 ANNEXURE-A AND 16.05.2018 ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 RESPECTIVELY FINDING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 GUILTY OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ORDERING THAT HE BE DETAINED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM HIS STUDIES.
IN W.A.NO.972/2019 BETWEEN:
AMRITA S. NAIR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS D/O M.P.SUDHIR KUMAR R/O E-1202, MANTRI TRANQUIL OFF KANAKPURA ROAD GUBBABALA VILLAGE BANGALORE – 560 061 ... APPELLANT (BY SMT.JAYNA KOTHARI, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI.ROHAN KOTHARI, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. MR.TUSHAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS S/O SANJAY RATHI KATWARIA SATIA NEW DELHI – 110 016 2. INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE CHRIST UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER DR.MAYAMMA JOSEPH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE – 560 029 3. INTERNAL COMPLAINTS APPELLATE COMMITTEE (ICAC) CHRIST UNIVERSITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DR.ANIL JOSEPH PINTO, REGISTRAR HOSUR ROAD SUDDANGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE – 560 029 4. CHRIST (DEEMED TO BE UNIVERSITY) REP. BY ITS VICE-CHANCELLOR DR.MAYAMMA JOSEPH HOSUR ROAD SUDDAGUNTE PALYA BANGALORE – 560 029 5. JANMEJAI SHUKLA S/O VINAY KUMAR SHUKLA AGED BOUT 19 YEARS R/O FLAT NO.S093 DLF WOODLAND HEIGHTS JIGANI LINK ROAD BANGALORE – 560 105 ... RESPONDENTS (SRI:H.S.PRASHANTH AND B.V.SONIE KUMAR, ADVS. FOR R1 SRI.SIDDHARTH B.MUCHANDI, ADV. FOR R3 AND 4 SRI.P.P.HEGDE, ADV. FOR R5 R2 – SERVED) ---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.02.2019 PASSED IN W.P.NO.24456/2018 AND CONFIRM THE ORDERS DATED 11.04.2018 ANNEXURE-A AND 08.05.2018 ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 RESPECTIVELY FINDING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 GUILTY OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ORDERING THAT HE BE DETAINED FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM HIS STUDIES.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Yesterday the appeals were taken up for hearing. These appeals arise out of a very unfortunate incident involving students.
2. The case of the appellant is that certain objectionable acts were committed by the first and fifth respondents in W.A. No.971/2019. The appellant, first and fifth respondents were students of the same class. At the relevant time, they were the students of third year in the B.A. LL.B. programme of the fourth respondent – Christ University. The appellant had filed a compliant against the first and fifth respondents. Looking to the nature of the allegations made by the appellant, we are not reproducing the same in the judgment and order. Suffice it to say that the allegations are very serious in nature which, if proved, will amount to sexual harassment of the appellant.
3. The second respondent in the appeal which is the Internal Complaints Committee of the concerned University, conducted an inquiry. In the inquiry, the second respondent found that the allegations against the first and fifth respondents were established and therefore, punishment was inflicted on them by way of detention from their current studies for a period of one year.
4. There were separate appeals preferred by the first and fifth respondents challenging the report of the Internal Complaints Committee of the University. The Appellate Committee upheld the order of the second respondent. The Vice Chancellor accepted the recommendations of the second respondent.
5. The separate writ petitions were filed by the first and fifth respondents before the learned Single Judge. Their challenge was mainly on the ground that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice. One of the arguments before the learned Single Judge was that the first and fifth respondents had admitted their conduct. The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned, allowed the writ petitions filed by the first and fifth respondents on the ground that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice. It was held that a copy of the complaint was not provided to the first and fifth respondents and that an opportunity to file their response in writing was not granted to them. By the operative part of the order impugned, both the orders were set aside and liberty was granted to the third respondent to take action against the first and fifth respondents, after giving notice in terms of the relevant Regulations.
6. Apart from the contentions on merits, the grievance of the appellant is that after recording a finding that the order of the second respondent stands vitiated by the breach of the principles of natural justice, in fact, an order of remand ought to have been made.
7. We have also heard the learned counsel for the first and fifth respondents. Both of them have submitted that though the orders against them have been set aside, both of them have been adequately punished. Their submission is that when such a finding was recorded by the learned Single Judge, based on admitted facts, that even a copy of the complaint filed by the appellant was not served on the first and fifth respondents, there is no reason to find fault with the impugned order, especially when a liberty has been granted by the learned Single Judge to the third respondent in the writ petition to take suitable action against them.
8. The third respondent is the concerned University. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that till ad interim order of stay was granted in the writ petitions, both the first and fifth respondents have missed studies only by one day and one week respectively. Hence, there is no adequate punishment.
9. We have given careful consideration to the submissions.
We have carefully perused the impugned order. In these appeals, obviously we cannot go into the merits of the allegations made by the appellant. Suffice it to say that if the allegations made by the appellant are proved, the same may amount to sexual harassment of the appellant.
10. The learned Single Judge has rejected the contention of the appellant that as the first and fifth respondents admitted the allegations even before the commencement of the inquiry, the breach of principles of natural justice has no relevance. The learned Single Judge observed that even thereafter, it was felt necessary to have an inquiry and therefore, the third respondent directed the inquiry to be held.
11. It is true that while setting aside the order, the third respondent has been granted liberty to take action against the first and fifth respondents. However, there is no direction that the third respondent is bound to initiate action. In our view, after considering the seriousness of the allegations made by the appellants and after setting aside the penalty, only on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice, the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the second and third respondents to hold an inquiry against the first and fifth respondents after following the relevant regulations.
12. This is not a case where the first and fifth respondents have suffered a ban or disqualification for a considerably long time. As stated by the appellants, they have suffered only for one day and one week respectively in view of the ad interim order of stay granted by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the argument that now fresh proceedings are not required cannot be accepted.
13. Hence, without disturbing the findings on merit recorded by the learned Single Judge, the operative portion of the order impugned needs modification. Accordingly, we pass the following order:
ORDER (i) The directions contained in paragraph 14 of the order impugned are partly modified by directing the third respondent in the writ petition (4th respondent in these appeals) to take action on the basis of the complaint made by the appellant by immediately referring the same to the Internal Complaints Committee strictly in accordance with law;
(ii) We direct that an endeavour shall be made by the Internal Complaints Committee to complete the inquiry as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within ninety days from the date of commencement of proceedings;
(iii) We make it clear that we make no adjudication on the merits of contentions of the contesting parties;
(iv) The appeals are partly allowed on the above terms.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE vgh*