IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision : January 24th , 2008 WP(C) No.9687/2007 # Chandra Bhushan Jha ….… Petitioner ! Through: Mr.Sachin Dutta, Advocate . Versus $ University of Delhi & Ors. ......... Respondents ^ Through: Mr.Anurag Mathur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms.Pinky Anand and Ms.Aanchal Mullick, Advocates for respondent No.3. CORAM :- * HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may YES be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported NO in the Digest? ANIL KUMAR, J. (Oral) * 1. The petitioner has impugned the inquiry proceedings initiated against him under Ordinance XV-D of Delhi University and has also sought direction in case the inquiry proceedings cannot be quashed to comply with the principle of natural justice and restrain the Inquiry Committee to proceed with the inquiry without fully complying with the provisions of principle of natural justice. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the allegation made WP(C) No.9687/2007 Page 1 of 3 against him for sexual harassment was leaked to Media which resulted in reporting of the same in several newspapers. According to the petitioner the committee constituted to look into the matter, could not be constituted on prima facie satisfaction of sexual harassment allegation against him. 3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the fact that in his entire reply he has given a complete account of his entire interaction with the complainant and he has written letters to the Inquiry Committee raising various objections which letters have not been entertained in the sense that no response has been given and from the behavior of the Members of the Committee, it is apparent that they have a pre- conceived mind and is bend upon indicting the petitioner. 4. From the allegations made by the petitioner against the Committee's members, it appears that they are based on his own apprehensions. In any case, the Committee has still to consider and decide various objections raised by him. From the allegations made by the petitioner, it does not appear that the Committee was not ready to decide the issues raised by the petitioner. The issue as to whether the alleged crime has been committed by the petitioner within the campus as contemplated under the relevant rules is also to be considered and decided. 5. Since all these issues which have been raised by the petitioner WP(C) No.9687/2007 Page 2 of 3 before the committee are yet to be decided and prima facie there are no such facts disclosed or such facts available on the record, on the basis of which it can be inferred conclusively that the committee is biased against the petitioner it will neither be appropriate to decide the issues nor it will be appropriate to change the committee which is looking into the matter. 6. Therefore for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider all the objections raised by the petitioner regarding various aspects of the inquiry at the appropriate stages expeditiously after giving full opportunity and decide them in accordance with the rules and regulation. All the pending applications are disposed of. Dasti. January 24th, 2008. ANIL KUMAR, J. 'Dev' WP(C) No.9687/2007 Page 3 of 3