Delhi High Court
Suresh Kumar Verma vs Jamia Millia Islamia University ... on 15 March, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 1502/2017
% 15th March, 2017
SURESH KUMAR VERMA ..... Petitioner
Through: In person.
versus
JAMIA MILLIA ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY AND ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
Review Petition No. 96/2017 in W.P.(C) No. 1502/2017 with C.M. Appl.
Nos. 10341/2017 (for stay) and C.M. Appl. No. 10342/2017 (for
exemption)
1. By this review petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (CPC) review is sought of the order dated 20.2.2017 by
which the writ petition, after arguments, was disposed of as not pressed.
The impugned order dated 20.2.2017 reads as under:-
"1. After arguments, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the
petitioner, states that in view of the fact that there is now a long delay the
petitioner does not wish to press the present writ petition.
2. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as not pressed."
2. The writ petition was filed challenging the orders of the
disciplinary authority dated 15.3.2016/2.5.2016, confirmed by the appellate
authority dated 16.9.2016, whereby petitioner was imposed the penalty of
withholding of two increments with cumulative effect and scrutiny of his
conduct during the next five years.
3. Petitioner is working as an Assistant Professor (Radio) in the
respondent no. 1/Jamia Millia Islamia University. Against the petitioner a
complaint of sexual harassment was made by a student Ms. N.S. that on
21.9.2011 on Ms. N.S. approaching the petitioner in his office room on 1:40
pm to get advice on voice modulation, the petitioner sat on the other side of
the desk and in the process of „teaching‟ her and identifying the place from
which the vibrations should originate, the complainant was asked to sit on a
chair next to the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner suggestively and for
quite a number of times touched and pressed the complainant‟s ribs, neck
and the collar bone area. Inquiry was conducted by the Sexual Harassment
Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and which committee
gave its report dated 8.5.2014 indicting the petitioner. It is noted that
petitioner resorted to non-cooperation in the inquiry proceedings and this is
noted by the Sexual Harassment Committee in terms of the following
observations in its report:-
"Process of Charged Officer/Respondent‟s Evidence:
The proceedings were now fixed for his evidence. The UCC sent separate to the
three witnesses, whose names were given by the Charged Officer/Respondent -
Mr. S.K. Verma in his defence, viz Dr. Pradeep Nair, Research Scientist, AJK
MCRC, JMI, Dr. Mohammad Tariq, Centre for Coaching and Career, JMI and
Ms. Anjum Iqbal, Incharge, Jamia Girls Secondary School, (Urdu medium). The
two defence witnesses, whose names were given by the Charged Officer -
Respondent - Mr. S.K. Verma in his defense ie - Ms. Anjum Iqbal, and Dr.
Mohammad Tariq, arrived as per schedule. The third witness of the Respondent,
Dr. Pradeep Nair, (Research Scientist, AJK MCRC, JMI) - was away from the
country for a long duration and hence was not available for the meeting. The
UCC met with Ms. Anjum Iqbal, and Dr. Mohammad Tariq and got their
signatures to verify their presence annexed as A-17 (Colly). However on that day
the Respondent avoided attending the UCC proceedings and had instead sent a
new Representation (written both in Hindi and in English) repeating the earlier
representations asking for more information/Documents beyond the purview of
the UCC.
The UCC discussed the case, and took cognizance of the fact that the Respondent
in the Case No. 1 of 2011, Mr. Verma had been offered innumerable opportunities
to cross examine the Complainant and Complainant‟s Witnesses and lead
evidence as per directions/Orders of the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.
(Civil) No. 4472 of 2012 with the "applicably rules with respect to conducting
such enquiry" being duly adhered to. It was collectively agreed that the
Respondent, Mr. Verma was endeavouring to delay the outcome of the enquiry
being conducted against him with misconceived petitions and raising absolutely
irrelevant ground.
The UCC thereafter, decided to proceed further with the Enquiry and the
Respondent, Mr. Verma was given FINAL opportunity (on April 7th 2014) to
make his statement in defence and to examine his defence witnesses if he so
desired. On the 7th April 2014, the Charged Officer/Respondent, Mr. Verma
arrived as per schedule but refused to make any statement in his defence or to
examine his witnesses. He was given yet another opportunity to say or submit
anything in his defence. Instead of making use of this chance, the Charged
Officer/Respondent, Mr. Verma it was absolutely clear that unlike the above
stated case (which has any way been set aside by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court) the
JMI, UCC has given innumerable opportunities to the charged officer, Mr. SK
Verma to:
I. Cross Examine the Complainant
II. Cross Examine the Complainant‟s witness
III. Lead defence evidence
IV. Examine his own witnesses
But the charged officer/respondent, Mr. S.K. Verma miserable failed to avail of
even one of the above opportunities provided to him by the JMI UCC. On the
contrary he kept on avoiding making use of the Enquiry proceedings to prove his
innocence, rather repeatedly raising the same frivolous objection and asking for
irrelevant documents beyond the purview of the UCC and was able to delay the
JMI UCC proceedings for nearly 9 months.
It is proved beyond doubt that the charged officer was not at all interested in
participating in the enquiry process to his benefit for reasons best known to him.
Thus the UCC has no option but to close the proceedings as it could not continue
the proceedings endlessly."
4. Before this Court, counsel for the petitioner on 20.2.2017 had
argued the case exhaustively and after hearing arguments this Court dismissed
the petition stating that the order would be dictated in Chamber during the
course of the day. At that stage, however, counsel for the petitioner on
instructions from the petitioner did not invite the judgment, and observations in
which may/could cause prejudice to the petitioner in future, and therefore the
writ petition was prayed for being disposed of as not pressed. The writ petition
was, accordingly, disposed of as not pressed by the impugned order dated
20.2.2017. However, in order to create some ground with respect to petitioner
not pressing the petition it was noted in the order dated 20.2.2017 that since
now there was considerable lapse of time/delay, with the complaint being of
the year 2011, the writ petition was disposed of as not pressed.
5. Now the present review petition is filed by the petitioner in
person alleging that he did not give instructions to his Advocate to not press
the petition. Petitioner who has argued the review petition in person however
agrees that he was present in the Court on 20.2.2017 and after arguments in the
case he had talked to his Advocate who had addressed the arguments.
6. The present review petition is a gross abuse of process of law
because such a review petition not only unfairly accuses Advocates by litigants
by resorting to falsehood, but also that there is unnecessary wastage of
precious judicial time, inasmuch as, if the petition was pressed, then the
judgment would have been dictated on 20.2.2017 itself for dismissing the writ
petition. Today now the petitioner cannot by his self-serving averment claim
that he did not instruct his Advocate for not pressing the petition on 20.2.2017,
and such averment of the petitioner is not believed by this Court, inasmuch as,
instructions were in fact given by the petitioner to his counsel in the presence
of the Court.
7. Accordingly, this review petition being completely misconceived,
malafide and a blatant abuse of law, the same is dismissed with costs of
Rs.25,000/- and which costs shall be paid by the petitioner to Friendicoes,
No.271 & 273, Defence Colony, Flyover Market, Jangpura Side, New Delhi-
110024, within a period of four weeks from today.
8. The review petition and the connected application are accordingly
dismissed.
MARCH 15, 2017/ AK VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
