'Shockingly disproportionate': HC sets aside dismissal of professor for consensual relationship with student
LUCKNOW: Observing that the termination of a professor of the Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT), Allahabad, for a consensual relationship with one of his students is shockingly disproportionate, the Allahabad High Court set aside his 19-year-old dismissal order. The court further observed that the relationship with the student amounted to misconduct but not sexual harassment as it was consensual. The single-judge bench, comprising Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, remitted the dismissal order to the disciplinary authority of the institute to reconsider the quantum of punishment. The bench held that while the institute was justified in proceeding against the lecturer for failing to maintain the sanctity of the teacherstudent relationship, the extreme penalty of dismissal with disqualification could not be sustained, particularly, when the relationship was admitted to be consensual, no criminal case was ever registered, and the complaint was lodged several years after the student had left the institute. Rajesh Singh, who joined MNNIT in 1999 as a Lecturer in the Computer Science and Engineering department, was dismissed from service in February 2006 following a complaint by a former woman student alleging an improper relationship during her student years. While the complainant initially alleged coercion, she later admitted that the relationship became consensual and continued for nearly three years even after she left the institute. Acting on the complaint, the institute first constituted a five-member committee, which did not return any definitive finding on sexual assault. Singh was nevertheless suspended, and a one-man inquiry commission headed by a former judge of the High Court was later appointed. The commission concluded that Singh had committed gross misconduct by showing special favour to the student and engaging in a physical relationship with her while she was enrolled at the institute. Emphasising the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship and societal expectations from educators, the commission recommended termination from service. The Board of Governors accepted the recommendation and dismissed Singh with disqualification from future employment. Singh had challenged his dismissal from MNNIT on the ground that the institute had completely bypassed the disciplinary procedure laid down under its own service rules. He argued that no charge-sheet was issued, no inquiry officer or presenting officer was appointed, and he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The High Court agreed that the prescribed procedure had not been followed. However, it held that Singh was not prejudiced on facts, as he had admitted to the relationship with the student, which continued even after she left the institute. The court observed that even if a full-fledged departmental inquiry had been conducted, the outcome on misconduct would not have been materially different. At the same time, the court examined whether the nature of the misconduct warranted the extreme penalty of dismissal with disqualification. It noted that the relationship was admittedly consensual, no FIR was ever lodged by the complainant, and the complaint was made several years after she ceased to be a student, following the breakdown of the relationship. The court also observed that the case did not amount to sexual harassment as understood under service rules, but was essentially one of moral impropriety. While holding that Singh failed to maintain the high moral standards expected of a teacher, the court noted that there were no other complaints against him during his service. In these circumstances, the court held, termination from service with disqualification is shockingly disproportionate. It concluded that the case may warrant a lesser, minor punishment rather than a major penalty like dismissal. Accordingly, the High Court interfered with the dismissal order only to the extent of punishment and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority of MNNIT to reconsider the quantum of punishment in light of its observations. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
9 C
