Jammu Education Society And Others vs State Of J&K And Others

Pankaj Mithal, CJ

Heard Sh. Anchit H. Sharma, counsel for the petitioners, Sh. Aseem Sawhney, AAG for respondent No. 1, Sh. W.S.Nargal, counsel for respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. K.S.Johal, Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Supreet Singh Johal, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

This petition has been preferred by the Jammu Education Society through its Chairman, Kanav Sharma. The petitioner No. 2 Priyanka Gupta is the

President of the Society and the petitioner No. 3 Pulkit Chrungoo is the Vice President of the Society.

It is alleged that the aforesaid Society works for the promotion and welfare of the students in all higher institutions.

The petitioners aver that on 05.09.2012, a complaint was filed against respondent No. 4, who was the then Director of the Law School, University

of Jammu. The matter was referred to the Committee Against Sexual Harassment (CASH) constituted by the University. The CASH Committee in

its meeting held on 4th July 2014 recommended the following disciplinary action against respondent No. 4:-

“i. Prof. Kulwant Singh should be removed from the administrative position. the decision to that effect has already been taken by the

University by removing him from the Directorship of the Law School.

Ii Prof. Kulwant Singh should be removed from the academic positions to protect the future career growth of complainant Dr. Seema

Sharma and witnesses (faculty & students of The Law School). The committee recommends that he should be removed from both the

positions namely Deanship and Convenership of Faculty of Law.

iii. To further safeguard the future career growth of the complainant Dr. Seema Sharma it is recommended that the offender Prof. Kulwant

Singh should not be associated with the selection panel of the complainant Dr. Seema Sharma even in The Law Department in future.

iv. The committee does not want to publicize the identity of the offender Prof. Kulwant Singh.â€​

The petitioners by means of this writ petition primarily want that respondent Nos. 2 & 3 , i.e., the University and its Vice-Chancellor to implement

the aforesaid recommendations of the CASH Committee dated 04.07.2014 and thereby respondent No. 4 be removed from all academic and

administrative positions in the University.

It has also been alleged that respondent No. 4 should be removed and barred permanently from holding any administrative position in accordance

with the minutes of the University Council at Item No. 80.25 dated 25.04.2016.

Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 as well as by respondent No. 4.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in objections stated that the petitioner-Society is not registered. It has no locus standi to maintain the petition. The petition

has been filed with ulterior motive to settle personal grudges. The University had initiated inquiry against the conduct of Kanav Sharma and he has

been indicted for misconduct. He cannot be permitted to pursue this petition. The recommendations of the CASH Committee have already been

implemented. Respondent No. 4 has been deprived of administrative position. He was removed from the post of Director of the Law School as well

as from the post of the Dean and Convener of the Board of Studies in Law for the remaining term. On the expiry of the said term as respondent No.

4 was again due for Deanship of the Faculty of Law as per Statutes of the University on the advice of Law Secretary (Legal Advisor Universities) as

the CASH Committee has not prescribed any period for which respondent No. 4 would be divested of administrative post, he was again nominated on

15.09.2017 as Dean Faculty of Law. There is no contravention of Resolution Item No. 80.25 of the Minutes of the 80th meeting of the University

Council. The respondent No. 4 was holding only one administrative post, i.e., Controller of Examination. The post of Head of the Department of Law

is merely on rotational basis and is not an administrative position.

Respondent No. 4 in his objections has raised fingers regarding the credentials of the Society and Kanav Sharma in filing the writ petition in public

interest. It is alleged that Kanav Sharma is involved in criminal activity and cannot be permitted to maintain this petition. On the basis of the

recommendations of the CASH Committee, action was taken against respondent No.4 and he was removed from the administrative position of the

Director of the law School and as Dean and Convener of the Board of Studies with effect from 2012 to 2015. He was again nominated as Dean

Faculty of Law on 15.09.2017 when his turn came as per the Statutes. The order of nomination dated 15.09.2017 is not disputed and has not been

challenged and, therefore, it cannot be said that the recommendations have not been implemented.

In the re-joinder affidavit, the petitioners, apart from other things, stated that the petitioner-Society has been registered.

Learned counsel for the parties accept that respondent No. 4 is retiring within a short period, i.e., within next two months and that he was removed

from the post of the Directorship of the Law School as well as from the post of Dean and Convener of the Faculty of Law.

The only issue therefore is whether the removal of respondent No. 4 from the said posts for a limited period suffices the purpose in the light of the

recommendations of the CASH Committee.

A perusal of the recommendations of the CASH Committee reveals that there was allegations of misbehavior against respondent No. 4 but the

nature of such misbehavior has not been described or disclosed. Nonetheless, the Committee unanimously recommended for the actions as mentioned

earlier but without specifying the time period for which such actions would remain in operation or continue. The University according to its stand acted

bonafidely on the legal advice tendered to it in permitting respondent No. 4 to re-function as Dean Faculty of Law in the facts and circumstances of

the case.

It may be pertinent to mention here that though the University appears to have implemented the recommendations of the CASH Committee in

letter and spirit but has failed to come out with any excuse for not taking any disciplinary action, if necessary. It is apparent that the University has not

applied its mind in its discretion for reasons obvious to it.

It is important to note that the incident is of the year 2012 and the recommendations of the CASH Committee are of the year 2014. The petition

has been filed in public interest in 2019. There appears to be no justification for raking up of the stale matter after expiry of almost five years from the

recommendations made by the CASH Committee.

Thus, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit not to spend any more time on this litigation and consider it appropriate to

give it a decent burial as no effective purpose would be served by initiating any further action against respondent No. 4, who is due to retire. The

respondent No. 4 has already suffered the punishment recommended by the CASH Committee.

Accordingly, in the fitness of things, we direct to close these proceedings and to consign the same to the record room with the expectation that the

University, in future, would act more vigilantly and sensitively in matters of such indiscipline by its faculty members.

The writ petition is consigned to records.