AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B. Adi
After arguing the matter for sometime, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No 1 - University submit that prayer No. 1 seeking direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take disciplinary action against respondent No. 3 on the basis of the report of the Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee constituted by respondent No. ). as per the service rules of the first respondent, has been complied. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the disciplinary authority has passed an order of punishment against the third respondent.
However, the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly argues that the decision making process adopted by the disciplinary authority is incorrect and the punishment imposed on the third respondent is also disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled against him.
In so far as prayer No. 1 is concerned, the disciplinary authority has taken a decision to punish the third respondent. However, as far as question as to whether the process is legaI or not and whether the punishment is proportionate or not is concerned, the petitioner can challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that memo issued to the petitioner and the proceedings sought to be initiated against the petitioner will not be precipitated. He also submits that there will not be any parallel enquiry as enquiry has already been conducted in pursuance of the report submitted by the Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee and as such, the parallel enquiry has become infructuous. The said submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 University are placed on record, Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order of the disciplinary authority in regard to the decision making process as well as the proportionality of the punishment in an appropriate petition.
Petitioner also undertakes that she will not indulge in going to the Press giving statements against respondent No. 1 - University.
The writ petition stands disposed of with liberty as observed.