Vakil Ahmed vs X & Ors.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 15.12.2025 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the Delhi School Tribunal in Appeal Number 09/2020 pursuant to which the learned Tribunal set aside the report dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Internal Complaint Committee (‘ICC’) and directed the school to constitute a fresh ICC and conduct a de novo inquiry into the complaint given by Respondent No. 1.

Succinctly stated, the present controversy involves allegations of sexual harassment. Respondent No. 1 was working as PGT (Urdu) in Shafiq Memorial Senior Secondary School. Respondent No. 1 preferred a complaint against the petitioner, who is also stated to be working as a PGT (Hindi) in the said school, alleging that the petitioner passed indecent comments and sexually harassed her. By her complaint, Respondent No.1 further requested that the CCTV footage be collected and preserved. The said complaint was forwarded by the school to ICC on 12.09.2019.

On 17.09.2019, Respondent No. 1 was asked to provide the evidence in support of her complaint against the petitioner till 18.09.2019. Thereafter, on 18.09.2019, Respondent No. 1 stated that she had sought some clarification from the head of school and would provide all evidence once the clarifications sought for were received by her. Respondent No.1 further stated that there were some discrepancies in the time stamp in the CCTV display which could lead to distortions in the gravity of proof and stated that she had requested that the same be fixed. Subsequently on 24.09.2019, Respondent No. 1 further preferred another letter stating that except the messages sent date wise to the head of school, all other evidences were in the shape of CCTV footage, and she also provided a list of dates whose CCTV footages were required to be checked. She further stated that the said evidence in the form of CCTV footage was only in the dominion and control of school and she could not by herself prove or demonstrate the contents of the same.

Thereafter, vide report dated 27.09.2019, the ICC found that the available CCTV system had no audio facility and retained footage only for fifteen days. ICC further stated that it could not view footage for the period between March 2019 to 12.09.2019 and noted that the backup available for 17.09.2019 and 20.09.2019 did not demonstrate any such conduct. The report further recorded that six teachers were selected randomly who did not support the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Consequently, Respondent No. 1’s complaint was found to be baseless and fabricated.

Consequently, an appeal was preferred by Respondent No. 1 against the findings rendered by the ICC vide report dated 27.09.2019. Upon a holistic appraisal, the learned Tribunal found that no notice was ever given to Respondent No. 1 and that Respondent No. 1 was never given any opportunity to examine the witnesses. Noting that the entire proceeding was concluded in a single hearing by oral interaction of six witnesses in the absence of Respondent No. 1, the learned Tribunal set aside the report dated 27.09.2019. The learned Tribunal further directed the school to constitute a fresh ICC and conduct a de novo enquiry by giving Respondent No. 1 an opportunity to examine her own witnesses as well as confront the petitioner by examining him. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

The principal ground raised by the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal did not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal preferred by Respondent No.1. Learned counsel submits that in terms of Section 8(3) of Delhi School Education Act, 1973 only an employee who is dismissed, removed or whose rank has been reduced, can file an appeal before the Tribunal. It is contested that the learned Tribunal being a creature of the statute is bound by the confines of the statute. It has further been argued that the ICC specifically took note of the allegations levelled by Respondent No. 1 and the material supplied by her to conclude that the complaint preferred by Respondent No. 1 was without any merit.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that though the appeal was maintainable, even if the case of the petitioner is taken at highest, the learned Tribunal had only directed a fresh inquiry after specifically noting that the same was conducted without any notice to the victim or any witnesses being examined. He consequently submits that this Court, taking note of the peculiar facts of the case, may not disturb the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal. He consequently prays that the present petition be dismissed.

Having taken note of the rival contentions of the parties, it is firstly apposite to take note of the grievance expressed by the petitioner by citing Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973. The said provision reads as follows:

From a reading of Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 as quoted supra, it is apparent that any employee of a recognised private school who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank may prefer an appeal against such order under Section 11. In the present case, there is no such dismissal, removal or reduction in rank that stems from the complaint preferred by Respondent No. 1. Stricto sensu thus, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 8(3) of the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 does not lay down an avenue to prefer an appeal when the complaint does not result in dismissal, removal or reduction in rank.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the jurisdictional objection raised by the petitioner must nevertheless be juxtaposed in the backdrop of the nature of the proceedings and the ultimate relief granted in the present case. Consequently, having regard to the fact that the underlying dispute concerns allegations of sexual harassment, the adjudication of which may have a bearing on the interests of Respondent No. 1 and the learned Tribunal, in any event, only directed conduction of a de novo inquiry, this Court considers it appropriate to examine the matter on its merits.

On a holistic appraisal of the facts of the present case, it is apparent that inquiry conducted by the ICC was nothing more than an empty formality. A bare perusal of the inquiry report reveals the absence of any reasoned analysis of the allegations levelled by Respondent No. 1 against the petitioner.

Evidently, the ICC inquiry was concluded within a single day. While it is not the intention of this Court to state that merely because the inquiry was conducted in a single day, the same was blemished, however, the cumulative effect of the compressed timetable in which the evidence was sought by Respondent No. 1, the absence of recorded witness statements, the dearth of opportunity to Respondent No. 1 to cross examine the witnesses, the limited CCTV review, the random manner of selection of witnesses, inter alia, is suffice to hold that the inquiry in the present case was flawed.

As apparent chronologically, Respondent No. 1 by letter dated 09.09.2019 preferred a complaint against the petitioner and specifically also pleaded that the CCTV footage be preserved to enable her to substantiate the allegations. Interestingly, the letter dated 17.09.2019 required Respondent No. 1 to furnish evidence the very next day. Respondent No.1 responded on 18.09.2019 and subsequently by letter dated 24.09.2019, she identified the dates and time slots for which CCTV footage was sought to be examined.

However, without any notice to Respondent No. 1, the inquiry was concluded in a single day. The inquiry report further only mechanically deals with the allegations levelled by the petitioner. In a sweeping manner, it records that six teachers (three male and 3 females) were selected randomly and they were asked one by one if the petitioner was guilty. The report does not disclose the evidentiary basis of the six teachers’ alleged responses, their identities or their statements. There is no record of the questions asked, the answers given, the dates of the interactions, the basis on which the Committee selected them. As noted above, there is no indication that Respondent No. 1 was ever told what these persons had said, and no opportunity, as discernible from the record, was afforded to Respondent No. 1 to identify the relevant witnesses or to respond to the material. In fact, the CCTV footage, that too, without any audio, was also brushed aside mechanically.

Upon a consideration of these facts, the learned Tribunal without any material adjudication, merely directed fresh constitution of ICC and directed a de novo inquiry by giving an opportunity to Respondent No. 1 to examine her own witnesses as well as confront the petitioner by examining him.

In the totality of circumstances thus, a mere direction for a de novo inquiry in the facts of the present case is reasonable and warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The present petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also stands disposed of.