The Delhi High Court has recently upheld the decision of compulsory retirement of a Delhi University professor over sexual harassment of one of his student. DU's Hindi Department professor was found to be involved in sexual harassment of a student. The Division bench consisting of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that Ajay Tiwari, the Professor of the Hindi Department of Delhi University was guilty of sexual harassment of his student and the disciplinary authority took a just and fair decision to compulsorily retire him from the service in the interest of the institution, as stated in a report by ANI.
"We find no illegality, perversity or incorrect approach committed by the learned single judge in passing the impugned judgment, and thus, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed," the bench stated in a judgement of July 26.
Further, it said, "We have no hesitation in holding that the disciplinary authority took a just and fair decision to compulsorily retire the appellant from the service in the interest of the institution and the impugned decision dated 1 July 2010 cannot be said to be perverse, harsh or unconscionable in any manner."
The appellant professor had challenged the judgment/order of November 25, 2019 passed by the bench of a Single Judge dismissing the petition challenging the decision of the Executive Council (EC) University of Delhi of July 8, 2011, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the appellant on the basis of a Sexual Harassment Complaint filed by a girl student.
On September 9, 2008, a complaint was filed to the vice-chancellor (VC) by the victim. She was pursuing MPhil in the Hindi Department and alleged that sexual harassment was meted out to her not only by the appellant but also by two other members of the faculty. This complaint was referred to the University Unit Complaint Committee (UUCC).
Background of the incident
The complainant levelled certain allegations against the members of the UUCC, and the VC marked the complaint to the Apex Complaint Committee (ACC) which convened, a Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee (SHCC) to inquire into the complaints. Following this, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant directing him to appear before the SHCC on October 21, 2008.
Further, he had responded through a communication dated October 18, 2008 requesting a copy of the complaint be provided to him. The SHCC on 27 April 2008 communicated its inability to provide a copy of the complaint to him. Meanwhile, the complainant had raised certain allegations against the members of the SHCC about misbehaviour meted out to her, and hence, the VC transferred the complaint to the ACC, which constituted a Sub-Committee and embarked upon an inquiry.
The appellant sought permission to lead oral and documentary evidence and also to allow him to cross-examine the complainant. He not only challenged the procedure for inquiry adopted by the ACC but also contended that there were no "unwelcome" sexual advances. The relationship between him and the complainant was consensual and rather he has been a victim of a conspiracy hatched between other respondents.
However, the ACC did not accede to the request and on 18 March 2009 framed charges of sexual harassment against him. The matter was argued by Advocate Tanya Agarwal on behalf of the complainant student and Delhi University was represented by Advocate Beenashaw and the Professor was represented by Manish Bishnoi, as stated in a report by ANI.
