Delhi High Court refuses to interfere with dismissal of DU Professor accused of sexually harassing students

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the conduct of an inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH Act) into sexual harassment allegations levelled against a Delhi University Professor by his students [Dr Amit Kumar v. University Of Delhi]..While refusing to interfere with the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) decision to recommend compulsory retirement of the faculty member, Justice Subramonium Prasad held,"It is often seen that female students are reluctant to report of such misconduct and many students even drop out of colleges as they face ridicule and humiliation. The purpose of the POSH Act inter alia is to provide and assure female students of a safe and secure environment where they can study freely.".Four women - three students and one alumnus - had complained to the University alleging sexual harassment by Dr Amit Kumar. The students stated that Kumar sent them objectionable messages riddled with sexual innuendo through Facebook Messenger and WhatsApp..Following these allegations, an ICC initiated an inquiry under the POSH Act and found that a prima facie case of sexual harassment was made out against Kumar. Resultantly, Delhi University issued a letter of compulsory retirement to him.Kumar moved the High Court challenging the letter of removal and also the constitution, procedure and findings of the ICC. He had also questioned the applicability of POSH Act in this case, stating that the chats had taken place on social media that does not constitute a “workplace”..The Court found "no illegality whatsoever in the constitution of the ICC". It also found no irregularity in the reasons of the ICC for condoning the delay in filing the complaint against Kumar."There would have been some substance in the arguments of the Petitioner, had it been a case of a single incident which was reported beyond the period of limitation. However, in the present case, it is clear that these incidents did not stop even after the confrontation of the Petitioner by the students of Respondent No. 2 College and therefore, given the objective of the Act, these incidents cannot be seen in isolation."After perusing the messages Kumar had sent, the Court describe them as “obscene and profane" and did not reproduce them in the judgment. “It is being clarified that this Court has perused the content of these messages and the transcript of the tele-conversation which were submitted by the complainants as evidence. Given the obscene and profane nature of these messages, the same are not being reproduced,” the Court stated..Finding that Kumar had not filed an appeal against the ICC decision in terms of the law, the Court said,"It is clear from the facts of the present petition, that the Petitioner is not ignorant of provisions of the POSH Act, UGC Regulations and the legal remedies available to him. This is especially evident from the fact that the Petitioner has filed two writ petitions before this Court and an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. Therefore, this Court finds it difficult to digest that the Petitioner was a novice in the matter of his legal rights and remedies."The Court observed that Kumar was given a fair hearing and that the failure of the Executive Authority to pass a speaking order did not result in prejudice..Senior Advocate Puneet Jain with Advocates Om Sudhir Vidyarthi, Mann Arora, Harsh Vardhan Sharma, Neeraj Kumar, Vishwendra Verma and Shivali appeared for Kumar. Advocate Seema Dolo appeared for Delhi University. .[Read judgment]