Praveen M.V. v. Union Christian College, Aluva and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2013/12TH CHAITHRA 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 17646 of 2012 (E)** **--------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** ## **------------------------** **PRAVEEN M.V., AGED 34 YEARS CO-ORDINATOR DEPARTMENT OF BIO TECHNOLOGY, UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE ALUVA 683102** **BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.PREETHI KESAVAN SRI.T.C.KRISHNA SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SMT.ASHA K.SHENOY SRI.PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **----------------------------** **1. UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE UC COLLEGE PO ALUVA 683102 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER** **2. THE PRINCIPAL** - **UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE UC COLLEGE P.O ALUVA 683102** **3. COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE UNION CHRISTIAN COLLEGE UC COLLEGE PO ALUVA 683102 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIR PERSON** **R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SMT. SUMATHI DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **DCS** ## **WP(C).No. 17646 of 2012 (E)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-** **EXT.P1 COPY OF NOTICE DATED MAY 11TH 2012 ISSUED TO ONE JOSHY PAUL EXT.P2 COPY OF OBJECTIONS DATED 23/5/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF LETTER DATED 13/6/2012 FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29/6/2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P5 COPY OF LETTER DATED 3/7/2012 FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P6 COPY OF LETTER DATED 12/7/2012 ALONG WITH THE ENCLOSURE FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.** **EXT.P7 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16/7/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8 COPY OF LETTER DATED 19/7/2012 FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P9 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 20/7/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** ## **' RESPONDENT S EXHIBITS:-** - **EXT.R1(a): COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.01.2013 SUBMITTED BY STUDENTS OF M.SC BIO-TECHNOLOGY, 4TH SEMESTER OF 1ST RESPONDNET COLLEGE BFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT.R1(b): COPY OF LETTER DATED 31.01.2013 SUBMITTED BY STUDENTS OF M.SC. BIO-TECHNOLOGY, 4TH SEMESTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT COLLEGE BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE GENERAL BODY RESOLUTION DATED 2.11.2011 EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 16.02.2012 EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE CIRCULATION DATED 03.11.2011 EXT.R3(d): COPY OF THE NOTICE EXT.R3(e): COPY OF THE MINUTES 10.04.2012 EXT.R3(f): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT** **DCS** ## **WP(C).No. 17646 of 2012 (E)** - **EXT.R3(g): COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.07.2012** - **EXT.R3(h): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.07.2012** - **EXT.R3(i): COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GB DATED 16.07.2012** - **EXT.R3(j): COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE STUDENTS** - **EXT.R3(k): COPY OF THE WRITTEN INFORMATION** - **EXT.R3(l): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.06.2012** - **EXT.R3(m): COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL DATED 20.07.2012** - **EXT.R3(n): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER** - **EXT.R3(o): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE PETITIONER** - **EXT.R3(p): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.** - **EXT.R3(q): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 18.1.2013 SUBMITTED TO THE MANAGER U.C. COLLEGE ALONG WITH ENCLOSURE DATED 29.03.2012** **/TRUE COPY/** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** **DCS** ## **A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J** **--------------------------------------W.P.(C). NO. 17646 OF 2012 ----------------------------------------** Dated this the 2[nd] day of April, 2013 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner, working as a co-ordinator in the Department of the Bio-technology in the Union Christian College, Aluva has filed this writ petition challenging the proceedings taken against him by the 3[rd] respondent as per Ext. P1 and P4 notices. Ext. P1 is a notice issued by the Complaints Committee of the college to one Mr. Joshi Paul requesting him to appear before the Complaints Committee in connection with allegations of sexual harassment levelled against the petitioner. Ext. P4 is the notice issued by the Complaints Committee to the petitioner to appear before the said authority in connection with an enquiry on the allegation of sexual harassment in the Bio-technology Department on 05.07.2012. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that he was not given a copy of the W.P.(C). NO. 17646 OF 2012 **2** complaint which was being enquired by the Complaints Committee and despite having issued notice calling upon the Authority to give a copy of complaint, without doing so they have proceeded to conduct the enquiry. According to the petitioner, he is not under obligation to participate in the enquiry until a copy of the complaint is given to him. According to the petitioner the allegations in the complaint or the allegations which resulted in the Complaints Committee being enquired into does not amount to sexual harassment coming within the ambit of **Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others [(1997) 6 SCC 241]** . The main contention therefore urged by the petitioner is violation of principles of natural justice and that the allegations even if taken to a logical conclusion does not amount to a sexual abuse in the work place. The petitioner also contends that there was an allegation of unholy alliance with a student and the student herself had approached the Principal and had stated that she is not involved in any such relationship with the petitioner. It is therefore contended W.P.(C). NO. 17646 OF 2012 **3** that the entire exercise is being done to malign the reputation of the petitioner and there is no basis for the said complaint. 2. Counter affidavit is filed by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. It is inter alia contended by the 2[nd] respondent, the Principal, that when certain complaints were received in regard to the sexual abuse by the petitioner she had referred the matter to the governing body and the governing body has taken a decision to constitute a Committee and the Committee is conducting the enquiry in the matter. In the additional affidavit filed by the Principal she stated that certain students who had raised complaints had withdrawn their complaint on the ground that the complaints were falsely given on account of instructions issued by certain persons. 3. The 3[rd] respondent is the Complaints Committee who had filed counter affidavit and has also contended that about 75% of the enquiry had been completed and they have taken statements from various students, staff and W.P.(C). NO. 17646 OF 2012 **4** members in relation to the allegations of sexual abuse. They had also produced a sealed cover containing the statements of various persons from whom they have collected materials. I do not think that it is necessary to verify any of those statements at this point of time as the matter is being enquired by the Complaints Committee. 4. According to the Committee they were unable to proceed further in the matter on the ground of stay granted by this Court and they had to conduct an enquiry on the basis of directions issued by the governing body. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior counsel Smt. Sumathi Dandapani appearing for the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent. 6. The main contention urged by the petitioner is that he is not supplied with a copy of the complaint and he is unable to answer the charges levelled against him. This is not a case of domestic enquiry where a showcause notice is issued and the person is called upon to answer the charges. W.P.(C). NO. 17646 OF 2012 **5** This is a case involving allegations of sexual abuse wherein only certain guidelines issued by the Supreme Court are available. It might be a case where an oral complaint has been given or it might be a case that a written complaint is given but without disclosing the identity of the person concerned. Any such complaints either oral or in writing, is required to be enquired into by a properly constituted Committee by the authorities concerned and it is in accordance with the said principle that the governing body of the College decided to constitute a committee. It is clear from the affidavits submitted by the 3[rd] respondent that the Committee had collected some information on the basis of statements given by various persons. The details of the statements can be disclosed only by the Committee concerned when they submit necessary report in that regard. 7. The question is whether the petitioner should be given a copy of the complaint before he appears before the Committee. In a case where there is no prescribed W.P.(C). NO. 17646 OF 2012 **6** procedure, the committee has to decide whether if at all there is a written complaint such a complaint has to be given to the delinquent officer as such. This is a case where the matters are to be handled very quietly and without giving much publicity to the issue involved. The interest of the victim as well as the person against whom allegations are made has to be protected. It is seem from the records that when a notice had been issued to the petitioner to appear before the authority he had sent a letter stating that unless he is supplied with a copy of the complaint it will not be possible for him to appear before the Committee. This has ultimately resulted in the delay in the decision making process of the committee. In other words the petitioner was in a position to delay the process started by the committee and in the meantime they had to collect the statements from others. It is therefore within the absolute discretion of the committee to decide whether the complaint received by them has to be supplied to the petitioner. Once a preliminarily enquiry is conducted and only if there is any W.P.(C). NO. 17646 OF 2012 **7** substance in the complaint that a further action will be followed in which case the details of reports will be made available including the materials collected by the Committee. At this stage of proceedings when the petitioner was only called upon to appear before the Committee he is only expected to answer the questions that the Committee may put to him in relation to the allegations against him. It is just a fact finding authority at the initial stage and the committee cannot take any decision in the matter other than to report the matter to the governing body. Nothing will flow out from the report so given by the Committee and it is later, for the governing body to take action after complying with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. At this stage of proceedings, I do not think the petitioner is entitled for a copy of the complaint, if any and insist for such a copy before appearing the Committee. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior counsel appear for the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondent that most of the students have W.P.(C). NO. 17646 OF 2012 **8** withdrawn the complaints. Such withdrawing of the complaints are not uncommon. No student would like to have any ill feeling with their teacher or it might be an instance where the petitioner is not at all responsible for the alleged acts. However that is not a matter for this Court to decide at this point of time. But the fact remains that if the students, staff or any other person involved have no complaint it is purely for the governing body to decide whether they should continue with the proceedings with the Committee or not. 9. In that view of the matter I do not think that there is any reason to interfere with the proceedings now initiated by the 3[rd] respondent. But it is made clear that it shall be open for the governing body to decide on the basis of subsequent events especially the letters issued by the students as well as the so called victim withdrawing their earlier complaints and to take a decision in the matter. The Complaints Committee shall proceed with further enquiry only after getting a written confirmation from the governing W.P.(C). NO. 17646 OF 2012 **9** body in that regard. It is open for the governing body to consider the subsequent events also while taking a decision in the matter. It is also open for the governing body to decide whether the case comes within the principles laid down in **Vishaka** 's case (supra). Writ petition is disposed as above. The file produced by the counsel for 3[rd] respondent may be returned to the counsel. SD/- **A.M. SHAFFIQUE JUDGE** DCS