Delhi HC upholds compulsory retirement of DU professor over sexual harassment of student

New Delhi [India], August 3 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has recently upheld the decision of compulsory retirement of a Delhi University professor over sexual harassment of one of his student.
DU's Hindi Department professor was found to be involved in sexual harassment of a student.
The Division bench of Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma held that Ajay Tiwari, the Professor of Hindi Department of Delhi University was guilty of sexual harassment of his student and the disciplinary authority took a just and fair decision to compulsorily retire him from the service in the interest of the institution.
"We find no illegality, perversity or incorrect approach committed by the learned single judge in passing the impugned judgment, and thus, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is dismissed," the bench in a judgement of July 26.
The bench said, "We have no hesitation in holding that the disciplinary authority took a just and fair decision to compulsorily retire the appellant from the service in the interest of the institution and the impugned decision dated 1 July 2010 cannot be said to be perverse, harsh or unconscionable in any manner."
The appellant professor had challenged the judgment/order of 25 November 2019 passed by the bench of Single Judge dismissing the petition challenging the decision of the Executive Council (EC) University of Delhi of July 8, 2011 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the appellant on the basis of a Sexual Harassment Complaint filed by a girl student.
A complaint was filed on 9 September 2008 to the Vice-Chancellor (VC) by the victim.
She was pursuing M. Phil. in the Hindi Department, alleged that sexual harassment was meted out to her not only by the appellant but also two other members of the faculty. This complaint was referred to University Unit Complaint Committee (UUCC).
The complainant levelled certain allegations against the members of the "UUCC", and the "VC" marked the complaint to the Apex Complaint Committee (ACC) which convened, a Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee (SHCC) to inquire into the complaints.
Thereafter, a Show Cause notice was issued to the appellant directing him to appear
before the "SHCC" on 21 October 2008. He had responded through a communication dated 18 October 2008 requesting a copy of the complaint be provided to him.
The SHCC on 27 April 2008 communicated expressing its inability to provide a copy
of the complaint to him.
In the meanwhile, the complainant had raised certain allegations against the members of the SHCC about misbehaviour meted out to her, and hence, the VC transferred the complaint to the ACC, which constituted a Sub-Committee and embarked upon an inquiry.
The appellant sought permission to lead oral and documentary evidence and also to allow him to cross-examine the complainant. He not only challenged the procedure for inquiry adopted by the ACC but also contending that there were no "unwelcome" sexual advances.
The relationship between him and the complainant was consensual and rather that he has been a victim of a conspiracy hatched between other respondents. The ACC did not accede to the request and on 18 March 2009 framed charges of sexual harrasment against him.
The matter was argued by Advocate Tanya Agarwal on behalf of the complainant student and Delhi University was represented by Advocate Beenashaw and the Professor was represented by Manish Bishnoi. (ANI)