Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Allahabad High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner, a Lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering in Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, Allahabad (‘MNNIT’) aggrieved by the order of removal from service based on a report of One Man Inquiry Commission (‘Commission’) which called his affair with an ex-student an immoral conduct, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J., held that it was not a case of sexual harassment, rather a case of a consensual relationship which continued even after the complainant left the Institution for almost three years. Thus, the punishment was shockingly disproportionate.
Accordingly, the Court remitted the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order with respect to the quantum of the punishment.
Background
In 1999, the petitioner joined MNNIT. In 2003, an ex-student made a written complaint, addressed to the Director of Institute (‘Director’), alleging that when she was a student of Master of Computer Education in MNNIT from 1997-2000, petitioner made a physical relationship with her against her will. The alleged incident took place in November 1999. She further stated that subsequently they had a consensual physical relationship even after she left MNNIT and eventually a symbolic marriage also took place between them. However, since she belonged to a different religion, the parents of the petitioner did not allow the solemnization of a proper marriage and, therefore, their relationship was broken, therefore, she made a complaint that she was subjected to physical and emotional harassment.
On basis of said complaint, Director constituted a Five Members Committee (‘Committee’) which could not arrive at any specific conclusion and submitted a report stating that it had no expertise to establish whether any rape was committed or not and the complaint was filed only when the petitioner got engaged with another girl in November 2002. Based on the inquiry, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
Subsequently, MNNIT constituted a Commission headed by Justice N.L. Ganguly, former Judge of the Allahabad High Court. The Commission found the petitioner guilty of misconduct on the ground that he had shown special favour to the ex-student when she was a student at the Institute and that his conduct of having an affair and physical relationship with his student was contrary to the tenets of the teacher—student relationship. The Commission held that such conduct amounted to immoral behaviour and was contrary to the values expected of a teacher in society. Relying upon Section 49-A of the State Universities Act, 1973 and Clause 16.04 of the First Statutes, 1976 of the University of Allahabad, the Commission proposed termination of the petitioner from service.
In his reply to the said report, the petitioner prayed for the report to be set aside. The same was considered by the Board of Governors in its 5th Meeting pursuant to which order was passed by the Director, dismissing the petitioner from service with disqualification.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that it was not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were not undertaken in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the resolution adopted by the Board of Governors in its 4th Meeting held in May 2004. The procedure commenced with the issuance of a charge-sheet to the delinquent official along with a statement of charges, a statement of imputation of misconduct, a list of witnesses, and a list of documents in support of the charges, followed by a memorandum requiring the delinquent official to submit a reply within a reasonable time. The procedure further provided for appointment of an Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry as well as a Presenting Officer. However, in the present case, no Inquiry Officer was appointed and, consequently, the subsequent procedure as prescribed was also not followed.
Thus, the Court stated that the issue that arose in the case at hand was whether the Commission could bypass the detailed procedure prescribed for conducting a disciplinary proceeding or not? The Court noted that the essence of the report of the Commission was founded upon the standard of morality expected of a teacher, the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship, and the requirement that a teacher must maintain morality at a very high pedestal.
The Court stated that since the petitioner had substantially accepted the allegations made by the complainant, merely on the ground that a detailed disciplinary proceeding in terms of the aforesaid resolution was not conducted and instead an inquiry was conducted by a Commission, it could not be said that the petitioner was prejudiced to such an extent so far as the allegations were concerned. The petitioner had admitted that he had a relationship with the complainant, who was his student, for a few months, which continued even after she left the Institution, and that they wanted to marry but could not do so as they belonged to different religions. Therefore, this was not a case where the petitioner could claim prejudice or contend that if the inquiry had been conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure, the outcome would have been different.
Further, the Court examined whether, given that the complainant was a consenting partner in a long-term relationship that began while she was a student and continued for three years after leaving the institution without marriage, such an admitted relationship could later justify imposing a major penalty on the petitioner. The Court noted that the complainant did not lodge any FIR against the petitioner.
Based on the material on record, the Court stated that it could be a case of false promise of marriage but the contention of the complainant that she was forced to enter into a physical relationship about three and half years ago even though she remained in relationship with petitioner for more than three years does not inspire confidence.
The Court further pointed that the complaint was filed by an ex-student after three years of leaving the Institution and remaining in a relationship with the petitioner for all those three years, and stated that the question arose as to whether such a complaint could be treated as cognizable, particularly in the absence of any FIR having been lodged by the complainant.
Considering the material on record, the Court stated that the sole reason for terminating the petitioner from service with disqualification was morality. While there was no doubt that the petitioner failed to maintain a high standard of morality, there was also the relevant factor that except for the present allegation, there was no other allegation against the petitioner, despite the fact that he had been in service for almost three years prior to the passing of the order of termination. It also appeared that had the petitioner married the complainant after their relationship of three years, possibly no complaint would have been filed. Therefore, morality should be judged considering the subsequent conduct of the petitioner as well. The Court thus opined that the punishment imposed, in the absence of any other complaint, was shockingly disproportionate.
The Court stated that it was not a case of sexual harassment, rather a case of a consensual relationship which continued even after the complainant left the Institution for almost three years. Therefore, it could not fall within the category of cases warranting imposition of a major punishment; some minor punishment could have been imposed. Further, the Court noted the major as well as minor penalties defined in Clause 9 of the Administrative Order under the heading “Disciplinary Action, Penalties and Appeal” and held that the order pertaining to the quantum of punishment was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order, keeping in view of observations of this Court. Thus, the Court disposed of the petition at hand.
[Rajesh v. Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology, 2025 SCC OnLine All 8076, decided on 16-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Abhishek Srivastava, Arvind Srivastava, Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Manish Tandon, Rahul Srivastava, Shashi Nandan and Suneet Kumar
For the Respondent: C.S.C. and Shivendu Ojha