S. Raju Aiyer vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 56 Del

                                                          UNREPORTABLE


*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                             W.P. (C) No.62/2011


                                     Date of Decision: January 06, 2011


       S. RAJU AIYER                             ... Petitioner
                          through Mr.W.A.Nomani, Advocate with
                          with Mr. R.K.Singh & Mr. Shah Alam,
                          Advocates

                    versus


       JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ORS          ..... Respondents
                     through Mr. Mohinder J.S. Rupal, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

Prior to the present writ-petition, the petitioner had filed

WP(C) No.5791 of 2010 challenging the order dated July 29, 2010

compulsorily retiring him from service. The said writ-petition was

disposed of on September 22, 2010 with the following order:-

"An enquiry was conducted on the allegations of sexual harassment against the petitioner and thereupon punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 29.07.2010 which is challenged by filing the present petition.

Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4 who is present on an advance notice has pointed out

WP(C) No.62/2011 Page 1 that there is a provision of appeal under the "GSCASH Rules". It is submitted that on the request of the petitioner, the "Appeals Committee" has already been constituted under the said Rules and petitioner has been informed of the same.

Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner will be preferring an appeal before the "Appeals Committee" as such petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to approach this court again in case there is any grievance thereafter. Learned counsel has also requested that some time bound direction be given for expeditious disposal of appeal.

In view of above submissions made, petitioner is at liberty to file an appeal before the "Appeals Committee" in accordance with law, if not filed earlier. Petitioner will be at liberty to raise all the contentions in the appeal as are raised in the present writ petition including that the respondent no. 2 i.e. Registrar is not an appropriate authority to pass a penalty order against the petitioner. If any such appeal is preferred, the same will be disposed of expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of filing of the appeal.

In view of above, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.

Needless to say that in case of any grievance thereafter, petitioner will be at liberty to raise his grievances before appropriate forum in accordance with law.

CM No. 12708/2010 (for stay)

Petitioner wants to retain the residential accommodation during the pendency of the appeal. On the other hand, counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4 has submitted that petitioner has already been informed vide letter dated 25.08.2010 that he can retain the accommodation in terms of Rule 10.2 (III) of House Allotment Rules for a maximum period of 4 months on payment of normal licence fee.

WP(C) No.62/2011 Page 2 In view of above submission made, petitioner can retain the accommodation for a period of 4 months from the date of penalty order on payment of normal licence fee.

Thereafter, petitioner will be at liberty to make a representation for extension of time for retention of official accommodation. The respondent will consider the said representation in accordance with the relevant Rules.

Application stands disposed of.

Order dasti."

Pursuant to the order dated September 22, 2010, the petitioner

preferred an appeal to the Appeals Committee on October 11, 2010.

By a Memorandum dated December 15, 2010, the Registrar, Jawaharlal

Nehru University informed the petitioner that the Appeals Committee

had recommended that he be compulsory retired without any

reduction in financial benefits. He was further informed that the

recommendation of the Appeals Committee had been accepted by the

Vice-Chancellor in his capacity as Chairman of the Executive Council

and that the matter will be reported to the Executive Council at its next

meeting.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

Memorandum dated December 15, 2010 conveying to the petitioner

that the decision of the Appeals Committee recommending his

compulsory retirement from service had been accepted by the

Vice-Chancellor in his capacity as Chairman of the Executive Council is

bad in law, for the reason that the recommendation of the Appeals

Committee could not be given effect to unless it was placed before the

Executive Council of the University and that the Vice-Chancellor in his

WP(C) No.62/2011 Page 3 capacity as Chairman of the Executive Council alone was not

competent to accept the recommendation. Reference in this regard

has been made to Rule X (3)(iv) of "Jawaharlal Nehru University - Rules

and Procedure of the Gender Sensitisation Committee against Sexual

Harassment". The said Rule runs as under:-

"Rule X(3)(iv). The Appeals Committee shall report to the Executive Council of Jawaharlal Nehru University its findings and recommendations on the nature of the action to be taken on the appeal."

On being confronted with the aforesaid Rule, the learned counsel

for the respondents who is present on advance notice, submits that the

Vice-Chancellor in his capacity as Chairman of the Executive Council

had accepted the recommendation of the Appeals Committee in

exercise of his emergency power because of the time bound order of

this Court dated September 22, 2010 whereby the appeal was required

to be disposed of within three months of the passing of the order. The

submission so made is misconceived. This Court in its earlier order of

September 22, 2010 had granted three months‟ time for disposing of

the appeal from the date of the filing of the appeal and not from the

date of the order. As already noticed above, the appeal was filed on

October 11, 2010, hence the three months‟ period was to expire on

January 11, 2011 and yet respondent No.1 in an undue haste passed

the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner on December 15, 2010 in

violation of the Rule referred to hereinabove.

Having regard to what has been noticed above, I direct

respondent No.1 to convene a meeting of the Executive Council within

three months and place the recommendation of the Appeals

WP(C) No.62/2011 Page 4 Committee before it for its decision. In the meanwhile, the petitioner

shall be allowed to retain the official accommodation on normal licence

fee and in the event of an unfavourable order against the petitioner, he

shall not be evicted from the accommodation till the expiry of a period

of 15 days after the decision of the Executive Council.

Needless to say that in case, the decision of the Executive

Council goes against the petitioner, he shall be at liberty to approach

the Court again.

With this direction, the writ-petition is disposed of.

A copy of this order be given Dasti to the learned counsels for

the parties under the signatures of the Court Master.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

JANUARY 06, 2011
ka




WP(C) No.62/2011                                                    Page 5