: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. WRIT PETITION NO.2972 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.2972 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO.2972 OF 2004 Purnima Sharma ...Petitioner. V/s. University of Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.Ranjana Todankar with Nandini G. Menon for the Petitioner. Mr.S.Mahadeshwar for the Respondent No.1. A.G.P. for the State, Respondent No.2. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate with Narayan Sahu i/b S.K.Shrivastav & Co. for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Mr.S.J.Deshmukh with Mr.A.D.Shetty and Ms. Rita Joshi for the Respondent No.5. CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & CORAM: H.L.GOKHALE & S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ. S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ. S.R.DONGAONKAR, JJ. DATE : 12th April, 2006. DATE : 12th April, 2006. DATE : 12th April, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the Parties. 2. This matter has been notified for directions before us in view of the order that we have passed earlier on 3rd April, 2006. On 3rd April, 2006, we had noted that reports of the committee members consisting of Mrs.Justice K.K.Baam,a retired Judge of this Court, Mrs. Nilima Chandiramani, Principal of K.C.Law College and Professor S.M.Engineer, Principal (Retd.), Thane Law College were : 2 : received and the parties wanted copies thereof. Accordingly, parties were permitted to take those copies. Today, we have heard counsel for all the parties. 3. This Committee was appointed by a Division Bench by its order dated 14/09/2004 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2493 of 2004 to inquire into the allegations of sexual harassment made by the petitioner against Respondent No.5. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as a lecturer and the respondent no.5 was the principal of the concerned Lala Lajpat Rai College of Commerce & Economics. 4. The report of the Committee is not unanimous. Professor Engineer and Professor Mrs.Chandiramani have given a finding that the respondent no.5 had indulged into the acts of sexual harassment. On the other hand, Mrs. Justice Baam has held that the allegation is not established. 5. Before we proceed to consider the submissions at this report, Mr.Dhakephalkar appearing for the college management informed us that in the meanwhile, respondent no.5-Principal, has tendered his resignation on 8th April, 2006. His resignation reads as follows: "Sir, : 3 : I hereby tender my resignation as Principal of Lala Lajpat Rai College of Commerce & Economics with immediate effect. Kindly accept the same and relieve me of my duties forthwith. This resignation is submitted without in any manner admitting and/or accepting the reports of Dr.Smt.Nilima Chandiramani and Prof.S.M.Engineer made pursuant to the order dated 14th September, 2004 in Writ Petition 2493 of 2004 and without prejudice to my rights and contentions to challenge the same before the Appropriate Forum." He further informed that the college management has accepted his resignation with effect from 10th April, 2006 and has drawn our attention to the letter dated 10th April, 2006 sent to him by the college management. 6. Mr.Mahadeshwar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1-university opposed acceptance of this resignation. He drew our attention to the compendium of the various statutes and ordinances issued by Mumbai : 4 : University. He pointed out that statute 444 provides procedure for imposing major penalty. This statute appears in part 30 of chapter II laying down the terms and conditions of the services of the teachers. Explanation 4 of this statute reads thus, "(4) While under suspension, the resignation of a teacher shall not be accepted." Mr.Mahadeshwar points out that admittedly, respondent No.5 was ordered to be suspended by the above Inquiry Committee and accordingly, he was suspended by the college management. In the circumstances, in view of this Rule, the college management could not unilaterally decide to accept the resignation. 7. Mr.Mahadeshwar further points out that as per the modified directions issued by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 14(8) of Maharashtra Universities Act on 15th October, 2004, the Committee which enquires into sexual harassment is to give its report under Clause 3(b) thereof and under Clause (4), it is the committee which has to impose penalty on a person found guilty of sexual harassment as mentioned in the subsequent Clauses. He, therefore, submits that the work of the enquiry committee is not over as yet. It has only given reports and now it : 5 : has to impose punishment as per Clause 4 of the above modified direction. 8. Mr.Mahadeshwar further points out that these Modified directions were challenged by respondent no.5 in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.284 of 2005 and that challenge came to be rejected in M.G.Shirhatti v. University of M.G.Shirhatti v. University of M.G.Shirhatti v. University of Mumbai & Others Mumbai & Others Mumbai & Others decided on 10th February, 2005 by the Division Bench to which one of us (Gokhale’J) was a party. 9. Mr.Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 submits that the work of the committee is over and according to him, if we look to the report given by three members, there are no specific findings given by them. 10. Ms.Todankar appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Mahadeshwar appearing for the university dispute this submission. They point out that by two versus one, the Committee has held respondent no.5 guilty of the allegations that were levelled against him. 11. Mr.Deshmukh, in any case, submits that it is for the college management to accept the resignation. He submits that in any case, if the Court was to take the view that the work of the committee is not over as yet, : 6 : then the opportunity of the respondent no.5 to challenge these reports and subsequent imposition of punishment should be kept alive. Mr.Deshmukh further submits that the committee has only investigated the allegations and has not conducted the regular enquiry/trial which was expected from the committee. 12. We have noted the submissions of all the counsels. In view of the Modified directions, the committee is expected to act in accordance therewith. Clause (3) and (4) thereof will have to be read together and, therefore, it is very clear that the committee’s work is not yet over. We have perused the reports. They have arrived at the finding by two versus one that the allegations levelled by the petitioner are proved. However, the committee has not imposed penalty which is contemplated under clause (4). In the circumstances, the committee consisting of Mrs.Justice Baam, Mrs.Chandiramani and Professor Engineer will proceed to complete this part. The Committee will decide about the punishment on the basis of the decision by the majority. The university will bring to the notice of the chairman and the committee members this order passed by the Court requesting chairman and the members to decide about the penalty under Clause 4. It will certainly be open to the committee members to arrive at their own decision which they will arrive at : 7 : after giving opportunity to the petitioner as well as to respondent no.5. It is thereafter that the committee will communicate its decision to the university and college management under Clause 5. The college is expected to act accordingly. In the circumstances, as far as letter issued by the college management, accepting the resignation of the respondent no.5 is concerned, that will not be acted upon until the decision of the committee. The resignation of respondent no.5 will remain in abeyance. 13. Mr.Dhakephalkar has informed that the college management has decided to permit the petitioner to join back on the duty. They have sent her a letter written to her on 10th April, 2006. Ms.Todankar states that the petitioner will join the duty accordingly. We were further informed by Mr.Dhakephalkar that the present assignment of respondent no.5 would expire on 7th May, 2006. In the circumstances, it will be open to the college management to appoint another principal after 7th May, 2006 which they may proceed to do in accordance with the governing rules. 14. In view of what is stated above, it will be open to the respondent no.5 to challenge the final decision, in : 8 : the event it goes against him. It will similarly be open for the Petitioner, to challenge it at that stage, if she is aggrieved by the final decision. 15. The Petition stands disposed of, with no order as to costs. (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (H.L.GOKHALE,J.) (S.R.DONGAONKAR, J.) (S.R.DONGAONKAR, J.) (S.R.DONGAONKAR, J.)