Dr. Minu Kashyap v. Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri Rashtriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth & Ors.

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 2015:DHC:475 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 abovementioned 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 employerorganization/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

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.

(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

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

248. 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.