Factual Matrix 

In the Matter at hand Prof Ajay Tiwari v. University of Delhi The appellant filed an appeal challenging the Single Judge’s decision to dismiss the writ petition challenging the Executive Council of the University of Delhi’s decision to sentence the appellant to mandatory retirement as a result of a sexual harassment complaint made by the victim. The vice-chancellor was accused of sexual harassment by the appellant and two other faculty members, according to the appellant, a professor in the University of Delhi’s Hindi Department. According to the appeal, the Single Judge’s decision was rendered after more than 13 months, which hurt the appellant. Despite the student being a mature lady attending a post-graduation course, the court incorrectly construed the meaning of sexual harassment by omitting teacher-student connections. Before the Executive Committee decided to have the appellant resign from service, he was not provided a Show Cause notice or hearing. Additionally, the Single Judge disregarded the fact that Respondent  Professor Vibha Arya’s involvement and lack of cooperation during cross-examination rendered the Apex Committee’s final report invalid.

Issue 

whether the natural justice standards were violated in any significant way.

Analysis of Court Decision

A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Dharmesh Sharma of the Delhi High Court ruled that the current appeal lacks merit since the single judge did not act illegally, perversely, or in the wrong way in rendering the challenged judgement.

The court determined that the appellant and delinquent official had provided a thorough response and were aware of the complainant’s concern. The representative admitted to sending the complainant offensive communications, including amorous messages while he was in attendance at a Doordarshan programme. He said that he and the complainant had a mutually beneficial connection and that she had been acting purposefully to get him into a relationship so that she could subsequently extort money from him. Given that Ordinance XV (D) did not allow for a face-to-face cross-examination, the Supreme Court’s instructions demonstrated a significant adherence to natural justice principles. No significant breach of the natural justice norms occurred during the investigation after the charges were imposed to harm the appellant.

The Court noted a change in service law that eliminated the idea that even a minor infraction would render an order void. The distinction between situations where there was no hearing and technical violations of the audi alteram partem principle has been made. The final test is the fair hearing test or the test of bias. The inequitable employee was unable to demonstrate how the contested order was biased and brought about a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the alleged activities were unlawful in the first instance and that the existence of the other party’s consent was of negligible consequence. The disciplinary body did not adjourn the inquiry hearings, and after the accusation was brought, the appellant submitted a questionnaire for cross-examination. In accepting all of the information on the record, including the admission of misdemeanours that resulted in the report dated 31-08-2010, the disciplinary authority did nothing wrong. The decision to retire the appellant from employment in the institution’s best interests was taken justly and fairly, according to the court, and it cannot be said that the impugned decision was perverse, harsh, or unconscionable.

CASE NAME – Prof Ajay Tiwari v. University of Delhi, LPA 94 of 2021