The Allahabad high court has observed that the termination of a Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT)-Allahabad lecturer for a consensual relationship with a student was shockingly disproportionate.
With this observation, the high court, in its judgment dated December 16, quashed the 19-year-old dismissal order of the teacher of the institute. The dismissal order was dated February 28, 2006. The court remanded the matter to the competent authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment in accordance with law.
The lecturer was accused of emotional and physical harassment by an ex-student.
The court further observed that the relationship with student amounted to misconduct and not sexual harassment.
The lecturer was dismissed from service on allegations of immoral conduct arising out of a personal relationship with a former student.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery allowed a writ petition filed by Rajesh Singh, a lecturer in the department of computer science and engineering appointed in 1999. The court held that while the petitioner may not have adhered to the high moral standards expected of a teacher, the extreme penalty of dismissal imposed in 2006 was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct proved.
The disciplinary action against the petitioner was initiated following a complaint lodged in 2003 by a former student, who had completed her master of computer education course between 1997 and 2000. In her complaint, the student alleged emotional and physical harassment and claimed that the petitioner had forced a physical relationship upon her during her student years. The complaint was filed three years after she had left the institute and after the petitioner’s engagement to another woman.
A five-member committee initially constituted by MNNIT expressed reservations about adjudicating allegations of rape and noted the belated timing of the complaint. Subsequently, a one-man inquiry commission headed by a retired judge was appointed. The petitioner admitted to having a relationship with the complainant but maintained that it was consensual and continued even after she had left the institute. On the basis of the inquiry report, the institute terminated his services on February 28, 2006, citing immoral conduct and apprehension of future misconduct.
{{/usCountry}}A five-member committee initially constituted by MNNIT expressed reservations about adjudicating allegations of rape and noted the belated timing of the complaint. Subsequently, a one-man inquiry commission headed by a retired judge was appointed. The petitioner admitted to having a relationship with the complainant but maintained that it was consensual and continued even after she had left the institute. On the basis of the inquiry report, the institute terminated his services on February 28, 2006, citing immoral conduct and apprehension of future misconduct.
{{/usCountry}}Challenging the termination, the petitioner argued that no FIR was ever registered, no criminal prosecution followed, and the findings of the inquiry were limited to alleged immoral conduct and favouritism, not sexual harassment or coercion.
The MNNIT authorities opposed the plea. It was submitted that since the petitioner had admitted the relationship, the inquiry could not be faulted and dismissal was justified.
The court noted that the complaint appeared to have been triggered by the failure of a proposed marriage between the parties due to inter-religious differences and parental opposition. It observed that, at best, the allegations could fall within the realm of a dispute arising out of a false promise of marriage, but the charge of forced physical relations did not inspire confidence.
While acknowledging that the petitioner’s conduct fell short of the moral expectations of a teacher, the court ruled that the case did not warrant the severest penalty.