MP HC gives relief to professor in sexual harassment case, says relationship with student began before admission

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently set aside the termination of a professor from the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU) over allegations of sexually exploiting a student [Rakesh Singh v. Indira Gandhi National Tribal University].

Justice Vivek Jain observed that the professor and the student had been in a relationship since 2013, while she enrolled at the university as a research scholar only in 2021. It also noted that she was 30 years old and married.

“The University seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that the University had no business to inquire into the relationship between the petitioner and complainant once the complainant stated that relationship was going on since the year 2013 and she became a student of the University for the first time on 02.03.2021. What the petitioner being a married person and the complainant being a 30 year old married lady did in their private life, was not the lookout of the university in any manner whatsoever, once the relationship was being alleged to be going on since the year 2013 and sexual relations alleged to be going on since the year 2019,” the Court opined.

Professor Rakesh Singh, who headed the Department of History at the university, was probed by the university's Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, following the student’s complaint.

She accused the professor of rape and stated that she was pregnant. In 2022, the ICC found the complaint to be substantiated. It led to the issuance of a chargesheet against Singh.

Subsequently, an Enquiry Officer found Singh guilty. IGNTU’s Executive Council then terminated Singh from its services.

Challenging the decision, Singh argued that ICC was not properly constituted and many of its members did not participate in the proceedings.

He also contended that the POSH Act was not attracted as the complainant was not a student of the university at the time of alleged sexual exploitation. The Court was also told that Singh was acquitted of the rape charge earlier this year after a trial before a sessions court.

The High Court opined that, at best, the matter could be termed a case of an extramarital relationship. It found that one of the members of ICC was on maternity leave and another had to abstain due to the complainant's allegation of bias. 

“​​Therefore, the ICC had practically only 5 members and in the opinion of this Court, the said ICC was utterly illegal committee being constituted contrary to provisions of UGC regulations,” it ruled.

The Court also found that a majority of the ICC members had not properly signed the final report, and that the signatures of two members had been obtained on blank sheets. It, thus, called the ICC’s report “a totally farce and bogus document”, ruling that it cannot be relied upon in any manner.

Looking into the charges against Singh, the Court said the ICC had failed to consider the fact that the relationship between him and the student had started prior to her admission at the university.

The Court also noted that his evading arrest in the rape case, while seeking bail from courts, could not have been treated as misconduct by the university since he stood suspended from duties and was no longer expected to attend them at the time.

Further, the Court said that Singh could not have been charged for approaching the High Court for relief in the criminal case, as it was his legal right to avail the remedies. The Court also rejected the charge over social media posts criticizing the university.

“In the opinion of this court once the petitioner was of the opinion that he is being oppressed by the University and he made some social media posts then it does not amount to any misconduct, more so when from the report of the inquiry officer there is nothing to be seen that what was the actual social media posts made by the petitioner, nor print-outs of such posts are available in D.E. record as submitted by the University before this Court,” it said.

However, the Court also observed that a charge accusing the professor of leaking a question paper to the complainant needs to be considered again in light of Singh’s defence that it was a common practice at the university to share important questions with students before examinations.

“In the opinion of this Court, this issue requires to be dealt with by the University authorities in detail by considering the fact that whether the question papers which are said to be leaked were framed by the petitioner and he was the paper setter of these question papers and further that whether the paper setter had shared the question papers with the petitioner and under what circumstances the petitioner came in possession of the question papers if these were not framed by him, if he was not the paper setter. The inquiry report is utterly silent on all these aspects. It is also to be assessed that whether there is academic practice in the University to share important questions before the examination which has also not been looked into in the impugned order or in the inquiry report in any manner,” the Court said.

Thus, in conclusion, the Court rejected the majority of the charges against Singh and remanded the matter only in respect of the allegation of leakage of question paper. Singh has been ordered to be reinstated in the meantime.

“Let the petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith and would remain under suspension till fresh order is passed as to charge No.5, as he was under suspension till date of earlier dismissal order,” it ordered, while partly allowing Singh’s plea.

Advocate Dinesh Upadhyay represented the petitioner (Singh).

Senior Advocate Ajay Pawar with advocate Rahul Kumar Pathak represented the university.

[Read Judgment]