Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. On receipt of the complaint, the Gender Sensitisation Committee Against Sexual Harassment (hereinafter referred to as "GSCASH Committee") of respondent no. 1 issued a restraint order dated 30.09.2008 against the appellant. The complainant (respondent no.5) reported a violation of this restraint order and, thus, a second restraint order was issued to the appellant on 26.02.2009. In terms of the GSCASH Rules, the complaint made by respondent no. 5 was examined by the Complaint Screening Committee and based on the recommendations of the Complaint Screening Committee, an Enquiry committee was formed on 12.03.2009 to inquire into the allegations made against the appellant. The Enquiry Committee framed the following charges:-

"MEMORANDUM WHEREAS an Enquiry Committee was constituted by the GSCASH to enquire into the complaints of sexual harassment received from Dr. Shankari Sundararaman, Associate Professor, CSCSEASWPS/SIS against Sh. S. Raju Aiyer, Personal Assistant, CSPILAS/ SLL&CS.

AND WHEREAS the GSCASH Committee served the charges against Sh. S.Raju Aiyer based on the report of the GSCASH Complaint Screening Committee and whereas the said Enquiry Committee has conducted a formal enquiry on the charges leveled against Sh. Raju Aiyer as per GSCASH norms.

"MEMORANDUM WHEREAS an Enquiry Committee was constituted by the GSCASH to enquire into the complaints of sexual harassment received from Dr. Shankari Sundararaman, Associate Professor, CSCSEASWPS, SIS against Sh. S. Raju Aiyer, Personal Assistant, CSPILAS, SLL&CS.

AND WHEREAS the GSCASH Committee served the charges against Sh. S. Raju Aiyer based on the report of the GSCASH Complaint Screening Committee and whereas the said Enquiry Committee has conducted a formal enquiry on the charges leveled against Sh. Raju Aiyer as per GSCASH norms.

22. We are in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge that there is no perversity in the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Committee and the Appeals Committee and, thus, we find no ground to interfere with the penalty imposed on the appellant.

23. The second contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the Registrar was not authorised to impose the penalty on the appellant. This contention is also without merit. Rule VII (i) provides for the report of the Enquiry Committee to be forwarded to the Vice Chancellor for consideration of the appropriate university authorities. The memorandum dated 29.07.2010 issued by the Registrar indicates that the report of the Enquiry Committee dated 19.02.2010 was submitted by the GSCASH Committee to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent no. 1 university and he had accepted the same. The report of GSCASH Committee having been accepted by the Vice Chancellor, the procedure of Rule VII of the GSCASH Rules has been indisputably complied with. In the present case, the appellant had also preferred an appeal and the report of the Appeals Committee was also accepted by the Vice Chancellor in his capacity as the Chairman of the Executive Council and subsequently by the Executive Council of the respondent no. 1 university at its meeting held on 05.04.2011. It is, thus, indisputable that the penalty imposed on the appellant has been approved by the Vice-Chancellor as well as the Executive Council of the respondent no.1 university. The Registrar of the respondent no. 1 is a "university functionary" as per Rule III(ix) of the GSCASH Rules and there is no infirmity in his acting on behalf of the university for the purposes of the Disciplinary Proceedings. In any view of the matter, the grievance that the penalty has been imposed by the Registrar and not the Vice-Chancellor of the university does not survive as the decision to impose the major penalty has been affirmed by the Appeals Committee which has the approval of not only the Vice-Chancellor, but also of the Executive Council of the respondent no. 1 university.