AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings No.UH/E-I/F.No.14/2021/4143, dated 12.02.2021, issued by the respondent No.1/University relieving the petitioner from the deanship of the School of Social Sciences with immediate effect on the basis of the report received from the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) dated 08.02.2021.
Several grounds have been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner impugning the proceedings. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice, provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short, the 2013 Act), UGC Regulations 2015 and also the procedures prescribed by the respondent No.1/University in accordance with the 2013 Act.
The petitioner and the respondent No.5 had appeared in person before this court on 30.09.2021 at 10.30 A.M along with their respective counsel. The parties were referred to Mediation and Arbitration Centre of High Court for the State of Telangana and they agreed to appear before the Director of the Mediation and Arbitration Centre on the same day to record compromise. The matter was, therefore, passed over to be called again at 1:15 P.M on the same day for receiving the Report of the Director of Mediation and Arbitration Centre. On the second call, when the matter was taken up, Terms of Settlement recorded between the parties by the Deputy Director (FAC), Mediation and Arbitration Centre were produced before the court. The Terms of Settlement dated 30.09.2021 duly signed by the parties and their respective counsel, which was forwarded by the Deputy Director (FAC), Mediation and Arbitration Centre, was taken on record.
It is recorded in the Terms of Settlement, dated 30.09.2021, that the petitioner has tendered his unconditional apology for the words inadvertently used in the past in the official communication against the respondent No.5 and the respondent No.5 has accepted the unconditional apology tendered by the petitioner as in the first condition and is ready to withdraw the complaint against the petitioner.
It is relevant to extract Section 10 of the 2013 Act, which reads as under:-
"10. (1) The Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee, may, before initiating an inquiry under section 11 and at the request of the aggrieved woman take steps to settle the matter between her and the respondent through conciliation.
Provided that no monetary settlement shall be made as a basis of concliliation.
(2) Where a settlement has been arrived at under sub-section (1), the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall record the settlement so arrived and forward the same to the employer or the District Officer to take action as specified in the recommendation.
(3) The Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide the copies of the settlement as recorded under sub-section (2) to the aggrieved woman and the respondent.
(4) Where a settlement is arrived at under sub-section (1), no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be."
As per Regulation 8(7) of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015 (for short, the Regulations), which is applicable to the respondent No.1/University, the aggrieved party may seek conciliation in order to settle the matter. The said Regulation reads as under:-
"8(7). The aggrieved party may seek conciliation in order to settle the matter. No monetary settlement should be made as a basis of conciliation. The HEI shall facilitate a conciliation process through ICC, as the case may be, once it is sought. The resolution of the conflict to the full satisfaction of the aggrieved party wherever possible, is preferred to purely punitive intervention."
In view of the above statutory provisions, there is no impediment for this court to dispose of this case in terms of the aforesaid settlement.
The Report dated 30.09.2021, which was submitted by the Deputy Director (FAC), Mediation and Arbitration Centre, is taken into consideration and this court by taking cognizance of the same has ascertained the views of the parties, who appeared before this court in person, and also their respective counsel after the Report was received by the court. Even in the court, the respondent No.5 stated that she is not interested in continuing the proceedings against the petitioner. However, the respondent No.5 expressed that she has an apprehension that in future the petitioner, who if reinstated as the Dean, may be a part of the Selection Committee for selection of Associate Professors or Head of the Department and there may be prejudice to her chances of being selected.
On enquiring from the petitioner on the above aspect, he voluntarily stated before this court that he shall not be a part of the Committee so constituted, wherein the name of the respondent No.5 comes up for consideration for selection to the post of Associate Professor or Head of the Department or any other post. The same is agreeable for the respondent No.5 and her learned counsel.
The respondent No.6 has also appeared in person before this court.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.6 was appointed as In charge Dean after the petitioner was removed. However, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1/University submits that the respondent No.6 is a regular Dean and not the In charge Dean. Surprisingly, the respondent No.6, who appeared in person, submitted that he is not interested in continuing as a Dean and he is voluntarily relinquishing the said post.
In view of the above settlement arrived at between the parties, the impugned proceedings dated 12.02.2021 is quashed and set aside. So far as the reinstatement of the petitioner as the Dean of School of Social Sciences is concerned, the respondent No.1/University shall take into consideration the statement made by the respondent No.6 before this court that he is relinquishing his post as Dean voluntarily and no more interested in continuing in the said post.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed directing the respondent No.1/University to take consequential steps in the light of the proceedings, dated 12.02.2021, being quashed by this court. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be made part of the Selection Committee which is constituted, at any point of time in future, wherein the respondent No.5 is also one of the aspirants for the post of Associate Professor or Head of the Department or any other post.
The miscellaneous applications pending in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.