# Dr. Virendra Singh v. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 358
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-05-28
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 35877 of 2014
- **Bench:** Dilip Gupta, Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-virendra-singh-v-banaras-hindu-university-varanasi-ors-43153
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-discontinuance of re-appointment-serious
allegations of sexual misconduct with
girl
student
of
4th
year
of
civil
engineering-three members committeesubmitted
detail
report
against
petitioner-allegations regarding violation
of natural justice-not available-held-no
detail
enquiry
required-considering
1 All] Dr. Virendra Singh Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Ors.
359
verdict of Supreme Court in Avinash
Nagra case-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-24
In
Hira
Nath
Mishra
(supra),
the
Supreme
Court
observed
that
the
responsibility of an Institution towards
its girl students was very great and it
was not necessary to hold a detailed
enquiry
in
matters
relating
to
a
complaint
made
by
girl
students
regarding
sexual
misconduct.
The
Enquiry
Committee
that
had
been
constituted by the Principal of the
Institute also consisted of three teachers
of the College which had recorded the
statements and thereafter had submitted
its report to the Principal who passed the
order expelling the male students. The
Supreme Court observed that in cases
where girl students are involved, it is not
necessary to hold a detailed enquiry or
provide an opportunity to cross examine
the witnesses. The Supreme Court also
observed that in such circumstances it
was not necessary to serve a copy of the
enquiry report to the male students
against whom the allegations had been
made by the girl students. This is also
what was observed subsequently by the
Supreme Court in Avinash Nagra (supra).
It is, therefore, not possible to accept
the contention of the petitioner that the
principles of natural justice have been
violated in any manner.
Case Law discussed:
(1999) 1 SCC 759; (2004) 8 SCC 129; (2005) 3
SCC 409; (1973) 1 SCC 805; (1997) 2 SCC

## Text

_Characters 0–39,999 of 41,831. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39999 for what follows._

358
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
33.
Where the defendants acquired
(purchased) the undivided interest of the
coparceners in the joint property, it was held
that they did not acquire the title to any
defined share in the property and were not
entitled to joint possession from the date of
their purchase. They could work out their
rights only by a suit for partition and their
right to possession would date from the
period when a specific allotment was made
in their favour. (Refer: Subhodkumar v.
Bhagwant Namdeorao Mehetre16)
34.
Explanation to the definition of
conveyance requires a co-owner of property
having a "defined share", meaning thereby,
the Explanation will not cover those coowners who merely have a share in the
property and their share has not been
defined; as in the case of H.U.F. property,
every coparcener will have a definite share
and in my view this will make no difference
as long as the interest is held jointly and there
is no partition of the said interest among the
co-owners.
35. In H.U.F., the co-parceners do
not have exclusive rights on any specific
property of the family, the property
allotted to their share become specified
only on partition; same is the position in
the case of a partner of a firm, though the
co-parceners like partners of a firm have a
definite share in the H.U.F./partnership.
(Refer: Jagatram Ahuja Versus The
Commissioner of Gift Tax17)
36. In the facts of the present case,
the releasors together released 1/3rd share
(each having 1/9th share) in favour of
Karta and other co-parcener and not to a
particular co-owner, the property was
being held jointly and there was no
partition of the interest in the property
among co-owners, the document in
question would be a release deed and not
conveyance or a gift deed.
37. I see no reason to take a different
view as has been taken by this Court in
Dharam Pal case (supra).
38.
For the law and reasons stated,
herein above, the impugned orders dated
28.05.2012 passed by the first respondent,
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Board
of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad and order
dated 25.07.2011 passed by the second
respondent,
Collector,
Kanpur
Nagar,
respectively, is quashed.
39. The writ petition is allowed with
cost.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.02.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA,J.
Writ-A No. 35877 of 2014
Dr. Virendra Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi &
Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person
Counsel for the Respondents:
Ajit Kumar Singh, S.C.
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-discontinuance of re-appointment-serious
allegations of sexual misconduct with
girl
student
of
4th
year
of
civil
engineering-three members committeesubmitted
detail
report
against
petitioner-allegations regarding violation
of natural justice-not available-held-no
detail
enquiry
required-considering
1 All] Dr. Virendra Singh Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Ors.
359
verdict of Supreme Court in Avinash
Nagra case-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-24
In
Hira
Nath
Mishra
(supra),
the
Supreme
Court
observed
that
the
responsibility of an Institution towards
its girl students was very great and it
was not necessary to hold a detailed
enquiry
in
matters
relating
to
a
complaint
made
by
girl
students
regarding
sexual
misconduct.
The
Enquiry
Committee
that
had
been
constituted by the Principal of the
Institute also consisted of three teachers
of the College which had recorded the
statements and thereafter had submitted
its report to the Principal who passed the
order expelling the male students. The
Supreme Court observed that in cases
where girl students are involved, it is not
necessary to hold a detailed enquiry or
provide an opportunity to cross examine
the witnesses. The Supreme Court also
observed that in such circumstances it
was not necessary to serve a copy of the
enquiry report to the male students
against whom the allegations had been
made by the girl students. This is also
what was observed subsequently by the
Supreme Court in Avinash Nagra (supra).
It is, therefore, not possible to accept
the contention of the petitioner that the
principles of natural justice have been
violated in any manner.
Case Law discussed:
(1999) 1 SCC 759; (2004) 8 SCC 129; (2005) 3
SCC 409; (1973) 1 SCC 805; (1997) 2 SCC
534.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.)
1.
The petitioner, who retired as a
Dean in the Faculty of Engineering and
Technology
of
the
Banaras
Hindu
University, Varanasi1 in January 2011 but
who was subsequently re-employed as a
Professor in the Department of Civil
Engineering in the Indian Institute of
Technology (Banaras Hindu University)
Varanasi2 upto 30 July 2014, has filed this
petition to assail the order dated 26 April
2014 by which he was informed by the
Institute that in view of the complaint that
was received from a girl student of his
Department regarding allegation of sexual
misconduct and in view of the report
submitted by the Women's Grievance Cell
which examined the complaint, his reemployment as a Professor in the Institute
stands discontinued with immediate effect.
2. It transpires from the records of the
writ petition that after the petitioner retired as
a Dean in the Faculty of Engineering and
Technology of the University in the month of
January 2011, he applied for re-employment.
A letter dated 20 July 2012 was sent to the
petitioner by the University informing him
that the Executive Council of the University
in its meeting held on 29 July 2012 had been
pleased to re-employ him as a Professor and
that if he was willing to accept the offer, he
could submit his joining report to the
Director of the Institute. The petitioner
accepted the terms and conditions stipulated
in the order and was deputed to the
Department of Civil Engineering of the
Institute for a period of one year or till the
post was filled up on a regular basis. Before
the term of one year was come to an end on
30 July 2013, the petitioner moved an
application
for
extension
of
his
reemployment as a Professor. It needs to be
noted that the erstwhile Institute of
Technology of the University became the
Indian Institute of Technology (Banaras
Hindu University), Varanasi with effect from
29 June 2012 under the provisions of the
Institutes of Technology (Amendment) Act,
2012. A communication dated 10/11
December 2013 was sent to the petitioner by
the Institute extending his re-employment for
a further period of one year with effect from
30 July 2013 on the existing terms and
conditions. The term of re-employment of
360
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner as a Professor in the Institute,
therefore, stood extended upto 30 July 2014.
3. On 18 April 2014, a girl student
who was studying in Part-IV in the
Department of Civil Engineering of the
Institute submitted a complaint to the
Director of the Institute that she had been
sexually harassed by the petitioner and the
complaint is as follows :-
"I wish to bring to your notice an
incident of great concern and sorrow that
happened on 18 April 2014 at around 5:30
pm.
I was sexually harassed by a senior
professor, Virendra Singh (ex H.O.D. and
ex Dean), of my department after he took
me to a lonely place saying that he wanted
me to have a look at the new apartment he
had purchased. He first invited me to have
tea with him at Vishwanath Temple and
then asked me to accompany him to
Lanka as he wanted to drink lassi. I tried
to settle him to have his drink at the
temple but he was adamant on going to
Lanka. Out of respect, as he is the senior
most professor of our department, I
followed him dutifully to his car. On our
way we met Prof. K.P. Singh. After the
drink he said that he wanted to visit his
newly purchased flat to check progress of
its work and I had no option but to follow
him.
In the lonely apartment after we
passed the guards he put his arm on my
shoulder. When I resisted he asked me if I
wanted to see his apartment from inside.
By that time I was feeling uneasy and
refused the offer. After that he turned
towards me in an attempt to kiss and
forced me to enter the room.
Alarmed by the situation I ran away
from
the
place.
He followed
me,
forcefully hold my hand and shamelessly
tried to persuade me to return to the
apartment or least enter his car. Somehow
I ran away from him and managed to
inform Prof. Rajesh Kumar and Prof. P.R.
Maiti, professors of my department.
Apart from this, he used to call me to
his chamber very frequently, for project
works, as he did to other female students of
the department too. He would often ask us to
visit his home in person to discuss work. On
some earlier occasions when he had asked
me to meet him outside the department, I had
taken some friends with me to accompany
us. This time he particularly asked me not to
bring anyone with me saying that he did not
feel comfortable in discussing his work that
way. Thinking that the temple was a safe
place, I agree to it. So finding me alone this
time, he tried to take advantage of me.
This is a very shameful incident for
our institute and extremely disturbing for
me as I considered him to be my mentor. I
request you to please do the needful by
taking serious action against him and
making sure that nothing like this happens
again with any other girl. I also request
you to take care of my security."
4.
The complaint, which was
submitted by the girl student on the same day
the incident had happened, was forwarded by
the Director of the Institute to the Women's
Grievance Cell for making an enquiry into
the conduct of the petitioner. A Committee
was then constituted consisting of senior
members of Departments of the Institute and
the constitution of the Committee is as
follows:-
1. Prof. Rekha Srivastava, Dept. of
Mathematical Sciences, IIT
 Chairperson
2. Dr. Kalpana Chaudhary, Department of
Electrical Engineering, IIT Member
1 All] Dr. Virendra Singh Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Ors.
361
3. Dr. Medha Jha, Department of Civil
Engineering, IIT Member
4.Smt. Swati Biswas Deputy Registrar,
IIT Member Secretary
5.
The Committee met on 22 April
2014, 23 April 2014 and 24 April 2014. The
complainant, the petitioner, Dr. Rajesh
Kumar
(Associate
Professor
in
the
Department of Civil Engineering), Sri Karan
Modi (a student of Part-III in the Department
of Civil Engineering) and Dr. P.R. Maiti
(Assistant Professor in the Department of
Civil Engineering) were called to appear
before the Committee. The
Committee
recorded the statements of the aforesaid
persons and gave it findings on 25 April
2014 against the petitioner on the allegation
made by the girl student. The Director of the
Institute, thereafter, issued the order dated 26
April 2014 for discontinuance of the reemployment of the petitioner as a Professor
in the Department of Civil Engineering of the
Institute with immediate effect.
6. The petitioner, who appeared in
person, refuted the allegation made by the
girl student and submitted that the order
was passed in complete breach of the
principles of natural justice as no
disciplinary
enquiry
was
conducted
against him. The petitioner submitted that
the Committee merely recorded his
statement and the statement of other
persons and even the enquiry report
submitted by the Committee was not
supplied to him. The petitioner pointed
out that the impugned order could not
have been passed merely on the basis of
the said report. In this connection, the
petitioner placed reliance upon Statute
31(a) of the Statutes of the University as
also Ordinance 23 to substantiate that his
services could have been terminated only
in
accordance
with
the
procedure
prescribed therein which requires a
detailed disciplinary enquiry to be held.
The petitioner also submitted that as he
had been re-employed by the University,
it was not permissible for the Institute to
have dispensed with his services.
7.
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the University and the
Institute, however, submitted that in view of
the seriousness of the allegations that had
been made against the petitioner by a girl
student of his Department which allegations
were found to be true by the Committee
consisting of Senior Professors of the
Departments of the Institute, the reemployment of the petitioner as a Professor
in the Department of Civil Engineering was
discontinued and that in such circumstances,
a detailed enquiry was not required to be held
nor a copy of the report was required to be
served on the petitioner. Learned counsel
also submitted that the petitioner was reemployed by the Institute by order dated
10/11 December 2013 for a further period of
one year with effect from 30 July 2013 and,
therefore, the contention of the petitioner that
the Institute did not have the power to
dispense with his services and only the
University could have dispensed with his
services is not correct.
8.

We
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties.
9. The petitioner retired as a Dean in
the Faculty of Engineering and Technology
of the University in January 2011. He,
however, submitted an application for reemployment. He was re-employed as a
Professor in the Department of Civil
Engineering of the Institute for a period of
one year. This decision was taken by the
Executive Council of the University. Though
the Institute of Technology of the University
362
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
became the Indian Institute of Technology
(Banaras Hindu University), Varanasi in
view of the provisions of the Act, the
Executive Council of the University was to
continue to function until the new Board was
constituted for the Institute. It is for this
reason that the Executive Council of the
University took a decision on 29 July 2012 to
depute the petitioner in the Department of
Civil Engineering of the Institute for a period
of one year. Subsequently, the Institute, by
order dated 10/11 December 2013, extended
the re-employment of the petitioner upto 30
July 2014. However, three months before the
said period was to come to an end, a girl
student
in
the
Department
of
Civil
Engineering in which the petitioner was a
Professor made a complaint dated 18 April
2014 against the petitioner regarding sexual
misconduct.
10. The Director of the Institute
placed the complaint made by the girl
student before the Women's Grievance
Cell for immediately making an enquiry.
A
Committee
consisting
of
senior
members of the Institute comprising of
Prof. Rekha Srivastava (Department of
Mathematical Sciences), Dr. Kalpana
Chaudhary (Department of Electrical
Engineering)
and
Mrs.
Medha
Jha
(Department of Civil Engineering) was
constituted with Smt. Swati Biswas
(Deputy Registrar of the Institute) as the
Member Secretary. The complainant and
the petitioner were called to appear before
the Committee on 22 April 2014 and their
statements were recorded. Dr. Rajesh
Kumar,
Associate
Professor
in
the
Department of Civil Engineering and
Karan Modi, a student of Part-III in the
Department of Civil Engineering were
also
called
to
appear
before
the
Committee on 23 April 2014. The
statements made by them were also
recorded. Dr. P.R. Maiti, Assistant
Professor appeared before the Committee
on 24 April 2014 and his statement was
also recorded. On the basis of the
statements, the Committee submitted its
report to the Director of the Institute
which is as follows -
"1. Miss X, IDD Part-IV, Department
of Civil Engineering, IIT (BHU), received a
phone call at 3.30 p.. on 18.4.2014 from
Prof. Virendra Singh, ex-head, Department
of Civil Engineering & ex-Dean, IT, BHU to
have 'Lassi' at Lanka. Whereas Prof.
Virendra Singh informed the committee that
invitation was from the student and he was
not sure whether he called her or the student
called him. (Further as per letter dated
23.04.14 of Prof. Virendra Singh addressed
to the Director, ITT (BHU) he has accepted
that he phoned her if she is coming to his
room to interact about the research and asked
her to come alone). But Miss X insisted him
to have the drink at Vishwanath Temple.
After reaching Vishwanath Temple at around
5.30 p.m., Prof. Virendra Singh asked her to
accompany him to Lanka for lassi. The fact
is that both of them went to Lanka together
in the car of Prof. Virendra Singh which has
been accepted by both of them.
2.Prof. K.P. Singh, ex-Director, IT,
BHU met them in Lanka where both of them
were walking to have 'Lassi'. Again this
has been accepted by both of them.
3.After seeing off Prof. K.P. Singh,
they drank 'Lassi. After drinking 'Lassi',
Prof.
Virendra
Singh
asked
the
complainant to visit his flat near Samne
Ghat to check the progress of work of the
flat. Prof. Virendra Singh denied the fact
that she accompanied him to Samne Ghat
and further narrated that the complainant
left him after taking 'Lassi' in Lanka, but
he accepted that from lanka he went to his
1 All] Dr. Virendra Singh Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Ors.
363
brothers place which is near to his
apartment alone.
4. The complainant further narrated
that, "In the lonely apartment after we
passed the guard he put arm on my
shoulder. When I resisted he asked me if I
wanted to see his apartment from inside.
By that time I was feeling uneasy and
refused the offer. After that he turned
towards me in an attempt to kiss and
forced me to enter the room". These facts
were denied by Prof. V. Singh. He
accepted that he went alone to his
brothers house which is near to 'Ojha
Apartments'.
5.The complainant called her friend
Mr. Karan Modi (her junior) IDD Part-III
Department of Civil Engineering, ITT
BHU after coming out of the flat and
asked him to pick up her from Lanka. In
the meantime, when she was walking
towards Lanka from Samne Ghat, Prof.
Virendra Singh called on her mobile and
asked sorry for whatever happened.
6. Mr. Karan Modi picked her from
Lanka and they called Ishu Bansal
classmate of Miss X and all of them went
to the house of Dr. Rajesh Kumar. From
there, all of them went to the Department
of Civil Engineering in the chamber of
Prof. Rajesh Kumar. She narrated the
whole incident in from of Prof. Rajesh
Kumar and Dr. P.R. Maiti who eventually
was present in the Department of Civil
Engineering at that time. Dr. Rajesh
Kumar informed the committee that at
that time, the mental condition of the girl
student was not good and she was in
tremendous tension and this fact was
supported by Dr. P.R. Maiti and Mr.
Karan Modi also."
11.
It is on a consideration of the
statements made by the aforesaid persons
that the Committee found as a fact that the
complainant and the petitioner went to Lanka
to have 'Lassi' and thereafter the petitioner
took the complainant to his apartment where,
according to the complainant, the sexual
misconduct
happened.
The
petitioner
admitted that he went with the girl student to
have 'Lassi' at Lanka but he denied that he
took the girl student to his apartment. The
Committee, however, found that other
factors like calling Karan Modi, the
complaint to Dr. Rajesh Kumar and the
timing of the incident corroborated the
statement of the girl student. The Committee
also found that it was most unbecoming of a
Professor
of
the
Institute
to
have
accompanied a girl student and that too to a
lonely place which indicates his bad
intention. The Board of Governors, therefore,
ordered that the re-employment of the
petitioner as a Professor in the Department of
Civil Engineering of the Institute should be
discontinued with immediate effect. It is this
decision that was communicated by the
Institute to the petitioner.
12. The petitioner has refuted the
allegation of sexual misconduct made by
the girl student and has submitted that a
false complaint had been made by the girl
student because of an incident that had
happened on 12 April 2014. According to
the petitioner, the complainant had earlier
invited him for a cup of tea in a hotel on
12 April 2014. The petitioner accepted the
invitation and during the meeting he
found that the complainant and a third
year student who were sitting on a bench
in front of the petitioner started flirting in
his presence. The petitioner claims that
since he rebuked them she had filed a
false complaint against him.
13. It is difficult to accept this
submission of the petitioner. In the first
instance, as is seen from the documents
364
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which have been enclosed with the
counter affidavit, this incident which the
petitioner claimed had happened on 12
April 2014 was brought to the notice of
the Director of the Institute only on 23
April 2014 when the girl student had filed
the complaint on 18 April 2014 against
the petitioner. It appears that as an after
thought the petitioner has so stated to
make out a defence for himself.
14.
This apart, as noticed above, the
Committee which consisted of senior
teachers of the Institute had arrived at a
conclusion on the basis of the statements
made by the complainant, two Assistant
Professors teachers and a student. The
complaint was submitted by the girl student
to the Director of the Institute on the same
date the incident had happened. She narrated
the sequence of events including what had
happened in the lonely apartment. Soon after
the incident she also informed two other
Professors of the Department. The petitioner
did admit before the Committee that he knew
the complainant for the last 10 months; that
after taking lassi he was with the
complainant in Vishwanath Temple at 5:30
p.m. where he met Professor K.P. Singh at
around 5:45 p.m. Though the petitioner has
denied that he went to his new flat in
Lanka/Samne Ghat with the complainant
after having taken lassi, but he admits that he
went alone to his brother's house situated
closeby in front of Ojha Apartments at
around 6:15 p.m. Prof. Rajesh Kumar also
gave his statement before the Committee. He
stated that the complainant had contacted
him on 18 April 2014 immediately after the
incident that had taken place and that he had
advised her to make a complaint to the
appropriate authority. On a query being
made as to whether the complaint made by
the girl student was correct, he stated that in
his opinion the complaint was correct. He
also stated that the mental condition of the
complainant was not good and she was in
tremendous tension at the time of reporting
the incident. Sri Karan Modi stated before
the Committee that the complainant had told
him everything about the incident that
happened on 18 April 2014. He also stated
that when he and the complainant were
studying in the Library at about 4:30 p.m.,
the complainant informed him that the
petitioner had asked her to accompany him
for a visit to Lanka to drink lassi. He also
stated that the complainant had told him that
she had narrated the entire incident to Prof.
Rajesh Kumar. The statement of the girl
student when appreciated in the background
of the statements of the two Professors and
the student to whom the girl student also
confided, does inspire confidence.
15. In this regard, we need to remind
ourselves of the observations that were
made by the Supreme Court in Apparel
Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K.
Chopra3 that in a case involving charge of
sexual harassment, the Courts are required
to examine the broader probabilities of a
case and not get swayed by insignificant
discrepancies or narrow technicalities.
The statement of the victim has to be
appreciated in the background of the
entire case, and when the evidence of the
victim inspires confidence, the Courts are
obliged to rely on it. Such cases are
required to be dealt with great sensitivity
and sympathy is wholly misplaced and
mercy has no relevance. The observations
of the Supreme Court are as follows:-
".............. In the instant case, the
behavior of respondent did not cease to be
outrageous for want of an actual assault or
touch by the superior officer. In a case
involving charge of sexual harassment or
attempt to sexually molest, the courts are
1 All] Dr. Virendra Singh Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Ors.
365
required to examine the broader probabilities
of a case and not get swayed by insignificant
discrepancies or narrow technicalities or the
dictionary meaning of the expression
"molestation". They must examine the entire
material to determine the genuineness of the
complaint. The statement of the victim must
be appreciated in the background of the
entire case. Where the evidence of the victim
inspires confidence, as is the position in the
instant case, the courts are obliged to rely on
it. Such cases are required to be dealt with
great sensitivity. Sympathy in such cases in
favour of the superior officer is wholly
misplaced
and
mercy
has
no
relevance.............."
16. It is, in such circumstances, not
possible for the Court to conclude that the
findings recorded by the Committee of
senior teachers of the Institute are
perverse.
17. The issue, however, that also
arises for consideration is whether in the
facts and circumstances of the case, it was
necessary for the Institute to have held a
detailed disciplinary enquiry against the
petitioner before discontinuing his reemployment.
18. It is trite that the rules of 'natural
justice' are not embodied rules and they
cannot be put into a strait-jacket formula.
The underlying principles of natural
justice is to check arbitrary exercise of
power and, therefore, the principle
implies a duty to act fairly. It is not
possible to lay down a rigid rule as to
when the principles of natural justice
would apply as
the requirements of
natural justice must depend on the facts
and circumstances of the case, the nature
of the enquiry, the subject-matter to be
dealt with. The Supreme Court in State of
Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh4 and Karnataka
SRTC Vs. S.G. Kotturappa5 has held that
the principles of natural justice are
required to be complied with having
regard to the fact situation obtaining
therein and cannot be applied in a vacuum
without reference to the relevant facts and
circumstance of the case.
19.
In Hira Nath Mishra & Ors. Vs.
The Principal, Rajendra Medical College,
Ranchi & Anr.6 the Supreme Court
examined at length the application of
principles of natural justice in the context of
an order that was passed by the Principal of a
College expelling certain male students
against whom the girls had made a complaint
that they had entered the compound of the
girls' hostel without clothes and had tried to
pull the hand of one of the girls. The
Principal of the College, when the complaint
was filed by 36 girl students, entrusted the
enquiry to a three member Committee
consisting of teachers of the College. The
Committee directed the four male students to
appear in connection with the enquiry and
were asked to write down whatever they had
to say. The girl students, who were parties to
the complaint, also gave their statements
before
the
Enquiry
Committee.
The
statements of the girl students had not been
recorded in the presence of the male students.
After making the necessary enquiry, the
Committee found that the male students were
guilty
of
grave
misconduct
and
recommended that they should be expelled.
Acting on this report, the Principal passed the
order of expulsion. The Supreme Court held
that in such circumstances, the requirement
of natural justice was fulfilled and the
relevant observations are as follows:-
"10. We think that under the
circumstances
of
the
case
the
requirements of natural justice were
366
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fulfilled. The learned Counsel for the
respondents made available to us the
report of the Committee just to show how
meticulous
the
members
of
the
Committee were to see that no injustice
was done. ................ The Committee on a
careful consideration of the material
before them came to the conclusion that
the three appellants and Upendra had
taken part in the night raid on the girls
Hostel. The report was confidentially sent
to the Principal. The very reasons for
which the girls were not examined in the
presence of the appellants, prevailed on
the authorities not to give a copy of the
report to them. It would have been unwise
to do so. Taking all the circumstances into
account it is not possible to say that rules
of natural justice had not been followed.
In Board of Education v. Rice 1911 AC
179 Lord Loreburn laid down that in
disposing of a question, which was the
subject of an appeal to it, the Board of
Education was under a duty to act in good
faith, and to listen fairly to both sides,
inasmuch as that was a duty which lay on
everyone who decided anything. He did
not think that the Board was bound to
treat such a question as though it were a
trial. The Board need not examine
witnesses. It could, he thought, obtain
information in any way it thought best,
always giving a fair opportunity to those
who were parties in the controversy to
correct
or
contradict
any
relevant
statement prejudicial to their view. More
recently in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk
1949 1 All ER 109 Tucker, L.J. observed:
"There are, in my view, no words which
are of universal application to every kind
of inquiry and every kind of domestic
tribunal. The requirements of natural
justice must depend on the circumstances
of the case, the nature of the inquiry the
rules under which the tribunal is acting,
the subject-matter that is being dealt with,
and so forth. Accordingly, I do not derive
much assistance from the definitions of
natural justice which have been from time
to time used, but, whatever standard is
adopted, one essential is that the person
concerned should have a reasonable
opportunity of presenting his case." More
recently in Byrne v. Kinematograph
Renters Society Ltd. 1958 2 All ER 579
Harman, J. observed "what, then, are the
requirements of natural justice in a case of
this kind? First, I think that the person
accused should know the nature of the
accusation made; secondly that he should
be given an opportunity to state his case;
and thirdly, of course, that the tribunal
should act in good faith. I do not think
that there really is anything more".
11. Rules of natural justice cannot remain
the same applying to all conditions. We
know of statutes in India like the Goonda
Acts
which
permit
evidence
being
collected behind the back of the goonda
and the goonda being merely asked to
represent against the main charges arising
out of the evidence collected. Care is
taken to see that the witnesses who gave
statements would not be identified. In
such cases there is no question of the
witnesses being called and the goonda
being given an opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses. The reason is
obvious. No witness will come forward to
give evidence in the presence of the
goonda. However unsavory the procedure
may appear to a judicial mind, these are facts
of life which are to be faced. The girls who
were molested that night would not have
come forward to give evidence in any regular
enquiry and if a strict enquiry like the one
conducted in a court of law were to be
imposed in such matters, the girls would
have had to go under the constant fear of
molestation by the male students who were
1 All] Dr. Virendra Singh Vs. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi & Ors.
367
capable of such indecencies. Under the
circumstances the course followed by the
Principal was a wise one. The Committee
whose integrity could not be impeached,
collected and sifted the evidence given by the
girls. Thereafter the students definitely
named by the girls were informed about the
complaint against them and the charge. They
were given an opportunity to state their case.
We do not think that the facts and
circumstances of this case require anything
more to be done."
(emphasis supplied)
20. In Avinash Nagra Vs. Novodaya
Vidyalaya Samiti & Ors.7, the Supreme Court
also observed that in the facts and circumstance
of the case, the conduct of the appellant was
unbecoming that of a teacher and held that
dispensing with a regular enquiry under the
rules and denial of cross-examination was legal
and not vitiated by violation of the principles of
natural justice. It was found that the appellant,
who was a Post Graduate teacher, went to the
girls' hostel at 10:00 p.m. in the night and made
sexual advances to a girl and when she ran
away from his presence, he pursued her to the
room where she locked herself. A report was
submitted to the Director who found the
appellant not worthy to be a teacher in the
Institution. It is in this context that the Supreme
Court observed that dispensing with a regular
enquiry and denial of cross-examination did
not vitiate the enquiry on the ground of
violation of principles of natural justice. The
observations are as follows:-
"12.
................
Therefore,
greater
responsibility is thrust on the management of
the schools and colleges to protect the young
children, in particular, the growing up girls,
to bring them up in disciplined and dedicated
pursuit of excellence. The teacher who has
been kept in charge, bears more added higher
responsibility
and
should
be
more
exemplary. His/her character and conduct
should be more like Rishi and as loco
parentis and such is the duty, responsibility
and charge expected of a teacher. The
question arises: whether the conduct of the
appellant is befitting with such higher
responsibilities and as he by his conduct
betrayed the trust and forfeited the faith
whether he would be entitled to the fullfledged enquiry as demanded by him? The
fallen standard of the appellant is the tip of
the iceberg in the discipline of teaching, a
noble and learned profession; it is for each
teacher and collectively their body to stem
the root to sustain the faith of the society
reposed in them. Enquiry is not a panacea but
a nail on the coffin. It is self-inspection and
correction that is supreme. .............................
Under those circumstances, the conduct of
the appellant is unbecoming of a teacher
much less a loco parentis and, therefore,
dispensing with regular enquiry under the
rules and denial of cross-examination are
legal and not vitiated by violation of the
principles of natural justice."
(emphasis supplied)
21.
In Apparel Export Promotion
Council (supra), the Supreme Court also
explained what constitutes sexual harassment
and that it is incompatible with the dignity and
honour of a female and needs to be
eliminated. The Supreme Court also pointed
that there can be no compromise on such
violations and any sympathy shown in such
cases would have a demoralizing effect on
women. Though the observations were made
in connection with sexual harassment to a
woman at work place, they would equally
apply to sexual misconduct by teachers. The
observations of the Supreme Court are as
follows:-
"25. An analysis of the above
definition shows that sexual harassment is
a form of sex discrimination projected
368
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
through unwelcome
sexual advances,
request for sexual favours and other
verbal or physical conduct with sexual
overtones,
whether
directly
or
by
implication, particularly when submission
to or rejection of such a conduct by the
female employee was capable of being
used for effecting the employment of the
female
employee
and
unreasonably
interfering with her work performance
and had the effect of creating an
intimidating
or
hostile
working
environment for her.
26. There is no gainsaying that each
incident of sexual harassment at the place
of work results in violation of the
Fundamental Right to Gender Equality
and the Right to Life and Liberty - the
two most precious Fundamental Rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of India.
As early as in 1993 at the 1LO Seminar
held at Manila, it was recognized that
sexual harassment of women at the work
place
was
a
form
of
'gender
discrimination against women'. In our
opinion, the contents of the fundamental
rights guaranteed in our Constitution are
of sufficient amplitude to encompass all
facets of gender equality, including
prevention of sexual harassment and
abuse and the courts are under a
constitutional obligation to protect and
preserve those fundamental rights. That
sexual harassment of a female at the place
of work is incompatible with the dignity
and honour of a female and needs to be
eliminated and that there can be no
compromise with such violations, admits
of no debate.
.......................
28. The observations made by the High
Court to the effect that since the respondent
did not "actually molest" Miss X but only
"tried to molest" her and, therefore, his
removal from service was not warranted
rebel against realism and lose their sanctity
and credibility. ............................... The High
Court overlooked the ground realities and
ignored the fact that the conduct of the
respondent
against
his
junior
female
employee, Miss X, was wholly against moral
sanctions, decency and was offensive to her
modesty. Reduction of punishment in a case
like this is bound to have demoralizing effect
on the women employees and is a retrograde
step. There was no justification for the High
Court to interfere with the punishment
imposed by the departmental authorities. The
act of the respondent was unbecoming of
good conduct and behavior expected from a
superior officer and undoubtedly amounted
to sexual harassment of Miss X and the
punishment imposed by the appellant was,
thus commensurate with the gravity of his
objectionable behavior and did not warrant
any interference by the High Court in
exercise of its power of judicial review."
22. What has been emphasised by the
Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions is
that rules of 'natural justice' cannot remain
the same under all conditions and that girls,
in cases of sexual harassment, may not give
evidence if a regular enquiry is held. Under
since circumstance, the Committee of
teachers that is constituted can record
statements and no opportunity of crossexamination is required to be given nor a
copy of the enquiry report is required to be
supplied. The dispensation of a regular
enquiry, therefore, under such circumstance
does not result in violation of the principles
of natural justice.
23.
It is, therefore, not possible to
accept the contention of the petitioner that a
detailed disciplinary enquiry was required to
be conducted. The petitioner was aware of
the allegation that had been made against
him as is clear from the reply that he had
1 All]
 Ram Nagina Lal Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369
submitted and had been given an ample
opportunity to state his defence when he
appeared before the
Committee. The
petitioner gave his statement before the
Committee which constituted of three senior
teachers of the Institute. The Committee also
recorded the statements of the complainant
and the other persons to whom the
complainant had narrated the incident soon
after it happened. The witnesses included Dr.
Rajesh Kumar, Associate Professor and Dr.
P.R. Maiti to whom the complainant had
narrated the whole incident soon after it
happened. The complaint was also filed by
the complainant on the same day i.e. 18 April
2014.
24.
In Hira Nath Mishra (supra), the
Supreme
Court
observed
that
the
responsibility of an Institution towards its girl
students was very great and it was not
necessary to hold a detailed enquiry in
matters relating to a complaint made by girl
students regarding sexual misconduct. The
Enquiry Committee that had been constituted
by the Principal of the Institute also consisted
of three teachers of the College which had
recorded the statements and thereafter had
submitted its report to the Principal who
passed the order expelling the male students.
The Supreme Court observed that in cases
where girl students are involved, it is not
necessary to hold a detailed enquiry or
provide an opportunity to cross examine the
witnesses.