HC sets aside dismissal of professor for consensual relationship with student

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.



Source link