Dr. Minu Kashyap vs Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 414 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 7741/2014 & CM No. 18217/14

%                                                    16th January , 2015

DR. MINU KASHYAP                                          ......Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

SHRI LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT
VIDYAPEETH & ORS.                           ...... Respondents

Through: Mr. B.S.Rajesh Agrajit, Adv. for R-1.

Mr. Arunav Patnaik, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This petition is filed by one Dr. Minu Kashyap impugning the

reports dated 8.8.2008 and 3.5.2011, issued by different committees

constituted to look into the allegations of gender discrimination and

harassment etc of the petitioner by the respondent no.2. At the outset, I put

it to counsel for the petitioner that one writ petition challenging two totally

separate enquiry reports separated by many years, and which have been

made pursuant to two separate proceedings, cannot be challenged by one

petition, inasmuch as, in such a case the petition will be bad for mis-joinder

of causes of action, therefore, the counsel for the petitioner confines the

challenge by means of this writ petition to the subsequent/second report

dated 3.5.2011. Also, and in any case, the report dated 8.8.2008 could not

have been challenged in this writ petition for two very important reasons.

Firstly, a report dated 8.8.2008 cannot be challenged by means of a petition

which is filed over six years later on 3.11.2014. Secondly, a reading of the

report dated 8.8.2008 shows (and which is barely only one page report) that

actually no findings have been given but the said report shows a resolution

of the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 herein. This

report dated 8.8.2008 reads as under:-

"REPORT OF THE INQUIRY COMMITTEE August 8, 2008

The Inquiry Committee consisting of Prof. Matadin. Former Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, Delhi, as Chairman and Dr. Suman Gupta, Dean, University School of Law and Legal Studies, G.G.S.I.P. University, Delhi, as Memoer and Shri P. Mariappan, Secretary to the Committee was constituted by Prof. Vachaspati Upadhyaya, Vice-Chancellor of Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeetha, New Delhi-16 vide his orders dated 24.8.2007 to enquire into the allegations made by Shri Manjit Singh, Assistant, Vidyapeetha against Dr. Minu Kashyap, Reader, English, Vidyapeetha and the allegations made by Dr. Minu Kashyap, Reader, English,

Vidyapeetha against Dr. B.K.Mohapatra, Registrar, SLBSRS Vidyapeeth.

The Committee met on 30.6.2008 at 2.30 PM and finalized its report on August 8,2008 after perusing the representations of Shri Manjit Singh, and Dr. Minu Kashyap and the statements given by the witnesses and other relevant documents. The Committee had a detailed discussion with each party and the witnesses and after the discussion with them. Since the representation submitted by Dr. Minu Kashyap is baseless and fabricated the committee had decided to resolve the issue in the interest of the academic atmosphere of the Vidyapeetha. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the matter stands resolved. The copies of all the relevant documents are enclosed.

The Committee wants to put in records that all the above- mentioned partieshad co-operated nicely and very smoothly resolved the issue."

2. In view of the above, let us now examine the petition so far as

the same challenges the report of the enquiry committee and which

committee was constituted pursuant to the letter of the Delhi Commission

for Women dated 6.12.2010 and which has given its report dated 3.5.2011

exonerating the respondent no.2. The committee was constituted pursuant to

various complaints which were made by the petitioner against the

respondent no.2 alleging that respondent no.2 used to harass the petitioner.

The committee which was constituted looked into the complaints filed by the

petitioner, examined the documents which were filed before the

committee by the parties, and also examined the statements of various

witnesses which were recorded by the committee and has referred to them in

its report. The committee thereafter gave the following conclusion:-

"FINDINGS:

After examining and relying on the afore-mentioned documents/records, the Inquiry Committee arrived at the conclusion that the incident of 3.8.2007 between Dr. Minu Kashyap, Reader in English and Shri Manjit Singh, the then Assistant (SC employee) of the Vidyapeetha had taken place in the chamber of Registrar. Whereas, from the facts and circumstances, the occurrence of the incident on 20.8.2007 as alleged by Dr. Minu Kashyap against Dr. B.K.Mohapatra Registrar of the Vidyapeetha in her complaint dated 22.8.2007 could not be established as it has not been proved to have taken place. The allegations leveled in the complaint of Dr. Minu Kashyap in her complaint dated 22.8.2007 do not constitute sexual harassment."

3. It is clear from the aforesaid para of the report of the

committee, and which was of a committee comprising of a total of five

members and of which three were lady members, that the allegations made

by the petitioner with respect to the incident on 20.8.2007, in her complaint

dated 22.8.2007 were not established/proved as having taken place.

4. The petitioner was a complainant because of whom the enquiry

committee was constituted. Petitioner therefore has locus standi to question

the report of the enquiry committee because the charged officer/respondent

no.2 has been exonerated by the enquiry committee report dated 3.5.2011.

5. Ordinarily, there are four grounds on which an enquiry

committee report can be challenged and which is of violation of the

principles of natural justice or violation of the rules of the employer-

organization/law or the findings of the committee are perverse or that the

punishment imposed is disproportionate. In the present case, since it is not

the charged officer who is coming before this court, the first and the last

aspect of compliance of the principles of natural justice and issue of

disproportionate punishment does not come into play. The issues which can

be argued on behalf of the petitioner/complainant can only be with respect to

perversity in the report or the report being violative of the rules of the

employer-organization/law.

6. A total of grounds A to L are given by the writ petitioner and

though reproducing them will make this judgment prolix, I have no option

but to reproduce the said grounds inasmuch as a reference to the said

grounds show that most of the grounds do not have the ingredients required

for a legal cause of action or it is found that the same are vague or that the

same are wholly unsubstantiated before this Court. Also, I may observe that

some of the grounds and which are with respect to the report dated 8.8.2008

challenge to which has been given up and so would not be relevant and

accordingly ground (D) of the grounds which pertains to the report dated

8.8.2008 is not being reproduced. Grounds A to L minus ground D read as

under:-

GROUNDS

A. Because none of the committees setup has ever looked into the authenticity of the allegation made by the Petitioner.

B. Because the "Inquiry Committee" comprising of Professor Matadin, Former Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi and Dr. Suman Gupta, Dean, University of School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSI University, Delhi is being setup by the Respondent No.2 himself. The same is in violation of principles of natural justice and the well read principle of law nemo judex in sua causa meaning thereby no one can be a judge of his own cause. Hence, there would be no fair justice. The report of the said committee is liable to be rejected on the said ground alone.

C. Because the report of the "Inquiry Committee" cannot be held to be impartial as the Respondent No.2 who engaged the members of the committee possibly to obtain a favourable report in his favour. Hence, in the interest of justice a fresh inquiry is called for comprising of the independent members.

D. xxxxxxxxxxxx

E. Because the impugned action of the Respondent no.2 in getting an inquiry done and get it approved by the Governing Body Meeting is a design created with an ulterior motive by misusing his position and office to ratify the wrongdoings.

F. Because the complaint of the Petitioner was forwarded to the "Sexual Harassment Committee" who in its report dated 26.03.2009 held that the complaint of the Petitioner is beyond the jurisdiction of the committee. Hence, it is ex-facie clear that the complaint of the Petitioner have not gone into by the said committee also.

G. Because the "Complaint Committee" was constituted in pursuant to the direction issued by the Delhi Commission for Women in its letter dated 06.12.2010 by the Respondent No.1-Vidyapeetha in terms of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Couirt in Vishakha Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1997(6) SCC-241. The constitution of the said "Complaint Committee" was ratified and approved by the Governing Body (Karya Parishad) in its 74 th Meeting held on 29.3.2011. It is also noted that the Respondent No.2 is being the Secretary of the Governing Body approve the same.

H. Because the constitution of the "Complaint Committee" is being ratified and approved by the Respondent No.2 alongwith other members. Hence, such constitution which has been done by the Respondent No.2 himself are incompetent to go into the authenticity of the allegation made against the Respondent No.2.

Since it is in violation of the principle of natural justice. The following case laws can be referred to:-

(i) A.K.Kripak & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1969 (2) SCC 262.

(ii) Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported in 1978 (1) SCC

(iii) Manka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, reported in 1978 (1) SCC

I. Because the report dated 03.05.2011 held that the "Complaint Committee" constituted in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishakha case (supra) cannot be the allegations of "harassment at workplace and gender discrimination" and further held that the complaint dated 22.08.2007 do not constitute sexual harassment. It manifestly clear that the said committee did not probated the allegations made by the Petitioner. Hence, it is necessary that a fresh and independent inquiry may be directed to look into the allegations made therein.

J. Because the gender equality and the right to life and liberty are two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Such rights have been violated time and again to which the present writ petition is being filed to restore the same by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 3 jointly and severally to enquire into the allegations made by the Petitioner.

K. Because it is manifestly clear the facts stated hereinabove that admittedly the complaint of the Petitioner has not gone into and the findings of the "Inquiry Committee" vitiates on account of malafide and bias.

L. Because on the premises of the impugned reports is being prepared requires reconsideration since the reports did not

suggest any finding. Hence, the very principle of law i.e. justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done is defeated."

7. I asked the counsel for the petitioner to urge specific reasons

and grounds for challenging the enquiry report dated 3.5.2011 within the

legal parameters as stated above on the basis of the aforesaid grounds, and

counsel for the petitioner has argued the following aspects:-

(i) The committee which has been constituted, and which has given its

report dated 3.5.2011, is an illegal committee because it has been constituted

by the respondent no.2.

(ii) The report of the enquiry committee dated 3.5.2011 is liable to be

quashed because the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD)

itself in its letter dated 23.12.2013 has questioned the lack of substance in

the enquiry report.

(iii) The petitioner in the alternative claims that the constitution of the

enquiry committee has been ratified in the 74th meeting of the respondent

no.1 constituted on 29.3.2011, and since the respondent no.2 was a

member/signatory to the Minutes of Meeting dated 29.3.2011, the

appointment of the committee itself is faulty.

8. All the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner are wholly

misconceived and dealt with by me hereinafter.

9. The first argument urged on behalf of the petitioner that the

committee has been constituted by the respondent no.2 is a totally baseless

argument because no document whatsoever has been filed before this Court

to show that the committee which gave the report dated 3.5.2011 was

constituted by the respondent no.2. Obviously, no document has been filed

because the committee would have been constituted by the concerned

authority in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

Vishaka & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241 and the

petitioner therefore has not given any details or the rules of the constitution

of the committee to show that the respondent no.2 constituted the committee

and that the constitution of the committee is therefore illegal. The first

argument urged on behalf of the petitioner is therefore rejected.

10. The second ground urged on behalf of the petitioner by placing

reliance upon the letter of the Ministry of HRD dated 23.12.2013 is once

again without basis because an opinion of the Ministry can in no manner be

relevant to the finality of the report of the enquiry committee dated 3.5.2011.

Merely because one Deputy Secretary in the Ministry writes that the report

leaves much to be desired, cannot mean that the report on that account itself

is illegal and liable to be set aside. A report can only be set aside either at

the instance of the employer or the affected persons such as the

petitioner/complainant only on legal grounds, and views of a person in the

Ministry can have no bearing to the legal effect of the report in question

dated 3.5.2011.

11. The last ground which is urged on behalf of the petitioner of

respondent no.2 being a signatory of the Minutes of Meeting dated

29.3.2011, and therefore, the Committee constituted being illegal is once

again an argument without merit and for which purpose let me refer to the

relevant portion of the Minutes of Meeting of the respondent no.1 and which

reads as under:-

"MINUTES OF THE 74TH MEETING OF THE KARYA PARISHAD OF SHRI LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI RASHTRIYA SANSKRIT VIDYAPEETHA, NEW DELHI HELD ON 29.03.2011 AT 3.30 P.M. IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM OF THE VICE- CHANCELLOR OF THE VIDYAPEETHA.

xxxxx xxxxx

8. Orders dated 26.03.2011: To conduct inquiry under the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965 through the Complaint Committee of the Vidyapeetha on the issues as raised on the complaint letter dated

22.08.2007 of Dr. (Mrs.) Minu Kashyap, Reader (English) duly forwarded by the Delhi Commission for Women vide letter No.DCW/4-C/12-RJ/3/09 dated 06.12.2010."

12. A reading of the aforesaid para 8 which is questioned by the

petitioner shows that all that the governing council of respondent no.1 did

was it ratified the aspect that Delhi Commission for Women had written a

letter dated 6.12.2010 to inquire into the complaint of the petitioner, and

therefore surely this factum cannot be against the petitioner but actually the

aspect is in favour of the petitioner because the governing council of

respondent no.1, and the respondent no.2 being a signatory to the Minutes of

Meeting of the governing council dated 29.3.2011, has not in any manner

constituted any committee or has gone against the interest of the petitioner

inasmuch as the aforesaid para 8 only states that the governing council of the

respondent no.1 will take action in accordance with the letter dated

6.12.2010 of the Delhi Commission for Women.

13. Also, I may note that challenge to the constitution of the

committee which was constituted in 2011 cannot be questioned, in the

opinion of this Court in the year 2014, and that too after the committee has

gone into the matter, conducted detailed proceedings, examined witnesses,

examined documents and thereafter given its report. I do not find any

pleading of the petitioner in the present case that the petitioner till she

received the report in November 2011, was not aware of the constitution of

the committee.

14. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the petition and

the same is therefore dismissed. No costs.

JANUARY 16, 2015                              VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib