Asma Parveen Vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Others - Court Judgment

Sudhir Narain, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Vfce-Chancellor dated 26.5.2000 dismissing the petitioner from service.

2. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Lecturer in Psychology in the Women's College on 13.4.1998. A serious allegation was made against her that while she was working as Lecturer in Psychology, Women's College, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as A.M.U.) and residing in a quarter in the premises of Abdullah Hall, she on 15th May, 2000 hadillegally confined in her residence a girl student of B.A. (Honours) IIIrd year course with the active connivance of a Ph.D. student in the Department of Psychology. A.M.U., Sheikh Abdul Barkat Masood Ahmad. The said girl was preparing for her 'examination which was in progress. She had offered Psychology as one of her subjects. Her allegation was that she used to take help of the petitioner. The petitioner on 15th May. 2000 at 12 noon asked her to come to her room, as she wanted to give her some important material relating with teaching. She went at the residence of the petitioner and when she reached her room at 12.30 p.m. on the said day. she found the petitioner inside in company of a person named as Barkat to whom she had earlier been introduced by the petitioner. Within a few minutes, the petitioner left the room on the pretext of doing some important work with a promise, to come back within a short while. Soon thereafter the said person, named as Barkat, started talking to her in indecent language and tried to outrage her modesty. The girl, whose name was not disclosed and Indicated by letter 'Miss K'. tried to flee from the room but found that the door was locked from outside and she had been put to illegal confinement. The said Barkat also threatened her. However, the said Barkat when went inside the bathroom. Miss K had presence of mind to lock the bathroom from outside. The petitioner returned to the room approximately after an hour. She opened the room and found that the bathroom was locked from outside by 'Miss K'. The bathroom was opened by the petitioner and the said Barkat came out of the bathroom in a furious mood, caught hold of the girl by her hair and tried to molest her in presence of the petitioner. 'Miss K' then gave a slap to Barkat due to which the grip on her became lose and she ran out of the room. The matter was reported to the Vice-Chancellor.

3. The matter was probed by Suraiyya Rizvi, Provost. Abdullah Hall. A.M.U., Prof. Mansura Haider. Principal. Women's College and Ms.Aziza Rizvi. Assistant Proctor. The petitioner was suspended by order dated 20th May, 2000 and was further directed to vacate the accommodation provided to her in Abdullah Hall. The girl was also residing in Abdullah-Hall premises.

4. On 21st May, 2000. the Vice-Chancellor appointed Prof. Rahtmullah Khan, Department of Physics. A.M.U.. as Inquiry Authority to inquire into the charge against the petitioner. On the same day. the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and she was asked to submit a reply to the Registrar, Departmental Inquiry Section, within 24 hours of the receipt of the charge-sheet. Along with the charge-sheet, the petitioner was also served with the substance of imputation of misconduct as set out in article of charges as Annexure-1, statement of imputation of misconduct in support of article of charges and list of documents and list of witness by whom article of charges were proposed to be sustained. The petitioner was also directed to submit her written statement along with the list of her defence witnesses and to produce such documents, which she wanted to rely upon. She was also asked to state whether she wanted to be heard in person. She was. however, directed not to reveal the name of the victim at any stage as she was well known to her and she was being referred to as 'Miss K' in the charge-sheet.

5. On 23rd May, 2000. the petitioner prayed that ten days time may be granted to her to file written statement. On the same day. the Registrar permitted the petitioner to file written statement by 25th May. 2000. The Inquiry Authority also gave a notice on 25th May, 2000 to the petitioner to attend the hearing on 25th May, 2000 along with her defence assistant, if any, and submit to him her defence documents and also her defence witnesses at the sitting of the inquiry. The Presenting Officer appointed by the Vice-Chancellor was also directed to bring his prosecution witnesses for making their deposition before him.

6. The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Authority on 25th May, 2000. She submitted her written statement alleged to be brief statement of her defence and reserved her right to submit a detailed statement of defence when she felt necessary. In the defence, she denied that any event, as stated in charge-sheet, had taken place. On behalf of the Presenting Officer, three witnesses were produced, namely, Prof. Suraiyya Rizvi. Provost Abdullah Hall as P.W. 1. Miss Aziza Rizvi, Assistant Proctor. Abdullah Hall. A.M.U. as P.W. 2 and Prof. Mansura Haider Principal Women's College, A.M.U. as P.W. 3. They narrated the facts as stated by the girl 'Miss K'. The petitioner was asked to cross-examine them but she refused to cross-examine. She was also asked to make her own statement and produce witnesses which she declined. The Inquiry Authority submitted its report to the Vice-Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor passed the order on 26th May, 2000 dismissing the petitioner from service on the material placed before him in the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner has challenged this order,

7. The order of the Vice-Chancellor has been attacked mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the Vice-Chancellor had no jurisdiction to pass order of dismissal in exercise of power under sub-secCion (3) of Section 19 of the Aligarh Muslim University Act and secondly, that there was no fair inquiry and it was against the principles of natural Justice.

8. The violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry against the petitioner is challenged, inter alia, on the following grounds :

1. The name of the girl was not disclosed.

2. No reasonable time was granted to file written statement.

3. No material evidence to support the charges against the petitioner.

4. The complainant girl was not produced.

5. No reasonable time was granted to gel a defence Assistant.

6. The inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner.

9. To be precise we deal with all the points raised by the petitioner.

(1) The version of the petitioner in the petition is that the identity of the girl was not disclosed and in the Memorandum of Charges, she was mentioned as 'Miss K'. It is contended that unless the name of the girl was disclosed, it was difficult for her to submit her defence. The petitioner was given charge-sheet and in Annexure-2 to the statement of imputation of misconduct, it was clearly stated that the girl is a student of B.A. (Honours)-IIIrd year course and was preparing for examination which was in progress. She had offered Psychology as a subject and used to take help of the petitioner who was living in a quarter in the campus of Abdullah Hall itself. The girl was also residing in Abdullah Hall. The petitioner was a Lecturer in Psychology. It cannot be said that the petitioner had not known the girl.

The petitioner appeared before the Inquiry Authority on 25th May. 2000 and her statement in the order-sheet had been recorded wherein she made the following statement :

'I wanted to bring the girl concerned and Mr. Barkat as my defence witnesses but because T have been banned to visit Abdullah Hall Campus and Mr. Barkat for whom the University campus has been banned. therefore. I could not contact them and produce them.'

This order-sheet has been duly signed by the petitioner. Herstatement clearly indicates that she knew the girl concerned and had she not known the girl in question, she could not have made statement that she wanted to bring the girl concerned but she could not bring her as she could not visit the campus where the girl was residing.

The respondents did not disclose the name of the girl to save the honour and dignity of the girl and the reputation of Abdullah Hall, A.M.U. where many girls reside. In the Memorandum of Article of Charges, she was also directed not to disclose her name. Paragraph 4 of the said Memorandum reads as under :

'The aforesaid Miss Asma Parveen (petitioner) is directed not to reveal the name of victim at any stage while she was well known to her and she is being Teferred to as 'Miss K' in the charge-sheet. She is also directed not to publicise the document to save the honour and dignity of Abdullah Hall. A.M.U.'

The non-disclosure of the name of the girl did not prejudice the petitioner in any manner. She was aware of the name of the girl as stated in her own statement and from the relevant circumstances and the material on the record.

In Hira Nath Mfsra and other v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College and others, A[R 1973 SC 1260. wherein inmates of the Girls Hostel of Medical College made complaint against the male students of that college about indecent behaviour with them in the hostel campus itself in the odd hours of night, ft was held that in such case, the rules of natural justice does not require that the statement of the girls students should be recorded in presence of the male students concerned. In this case, the Students were called one after the other in the room and to each of them the contents of the complaint were explained without disclosing the names of the girls who had made the complaint. It was held that the girls were neither required to give statement nor the names were to be disclosed.

We had asked the learned counsel for the University to produce the record relating to the inquiry proceedings. The record was produced. The sealed envelop was opened and it disclosed the name of the girl. In the facts and, circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that non-disclosure of the name of the girl in question did not prejudice the petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. The petitioner was aware of the identity of the girl.

(2) Much emphasis has been laidthat the petitioner was notafforded reasonableopportunity to file writtenstatement. What would bereasonable time to file writtenstatement to reply thecharges depends upon thenature of the charges and theattending circumstances. Thepetitioner was suspended on20th May. 2000. She wasgiven a charge-sheet on 21stMay, 2000 and was asked tosubmit reply within 24 hours.The petitioner prayed for tendays time on 23rd May. 2000.She was given time to filewritten statement by 25thMay. 2000. The chargeagainst the petitioner wasthat she abetted Barkat whoattempted to criminallyassault the girl. Thepetitioner was residing inAbdullah Hall. The girl wasalso residing in AbdullahHall. The petitioner wasLecturer of Psychology andthe girl was also a student ofPsychology. The examinationwas in progress. Thepetitioner while asking for thetime did not give any reasonnot to submit writtenstatement within time grantedexcept that she was mentallyperturbed on obtaining orderof suspension of her service.The petitioner could havesubmitted written statementin accordance with the factsstated in the charge-sheet.She very well knew thecontems of charge-sheet andcould have denied it givingspecific details but she further asked for time. On 25th May. 2000. she had filed written statement alleging that it was a short written statement. She made general denial in the written statement.'

The relevant part of the written statement is :

'The so called reason for not revealing the name of the girl is unjustified and is bad in law since it deprives me of the identity of the complainant and. therefore. hampers the preparation of my statement of defence.

I. therefore, in view of the above lack of evidence claim that the entire matter is concocted and reeks of mala fides. I deny that any such event as claimed has taken place. Therefore. 1 categorically deny the charge.'

The petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to file written statement and in fact she had also filed written statement though according to her it was a short written statement.

(3) The third attack on the validity of the proceedings is that there was no evidence against the petitioner to support the charge against her. This contention is based on the ground that three witnesses produced on behalf of the respondents had no personal knowledge and their statements were based on the statement alleged to have been made to them by the girl concerned and such statement in absence of appearance of the girl as witness was no evidence in taw. This aspect has to be examined keeping in view the nature of the charge against the petitioner and the attending facts and circumstances involved in such inquiry. The three Witnesses produced on behalf of the respondents were respectable persons. MissSuraiyya Rizvi was Provost of Abdullah Hall. A.M.U. The girl concerned was residing in Abdullah Hall. The petitioner was also residing in Abdullah Hali. There was nothing to show that the statement of Provost was concocted. She narrated the entire events. The relevant part of her statement is produced hcrcunder :

'In the evening of 16th May, 2000 'Miss K' gave me a phone call that she wanted to talk with me urgently, I reached immediately Abdullah Hall within 15 minutes and near the P.C.O. (situated inside the hall), I met the girl who rushed to me and tried to say something. Looking at her face. I found that she was very anxious and she was also weeping. I took her away towards Library of Women's College where she disclosed to me that some mishandling was done to her in the room of a teacher Miss Asma Parveen. Lecturer in Psychology who lives at the campus, by a boy whom she stated as Mr. Barkat. I was taken aback and asked her to talk to me freely. She said that the teacher had called her at her room on 15th May. 2000 at 12.30 noon to give her some material relating with teaching. She reached there and while entering the room, she saw Mr. Barkal was also sitting there. He offered her some sweets, which he asked her to take as Miss Asma Parveen told her to take the sweets and congratulate Mr. Barkat. as he had submitted his Ph.D. thesis. The girl took the sweet and after eating, she felt some giddiness. Meanwhile Miss Asma Parveen said I am coming within a minute and went out of the room and latched the door from outside. After a few minutes, the boy (Mr. Barkat) started mishandling the girl. She immediately rushed out but saw that the door was latched from outside. She started trembling and the boy threatened her to surrender because she had no other alternative. He alsothreatened that if you refuse, it will go against you being a girl. Using her presence of mind and finding herself in a helpless position, the poor girl asked Barkat to give her some time for being mentally prepared. When Barkat wanted to undress himself, she asked him not to do it before her but to go into the bathroom to which Mr. Barkat agreed. Mr. Barkat went to the bathroom and the girl suddenly using her presence of mind to avoid the situation, she latched the door and Mr. Barkat asked her to open it otherwise it would be very harmful for her. It was nearly about an hour when Miss Asma Parveen returned and opened the door. When Asma entered the room, she opened the door of the bathroom where Mr. Barkat was standing in a shameful condition. The girl wanted to run away but Mr. Barkat being In a furious mood caught the girl by her hair and tried to molest her in the presence of Miss Asma Parveen. The girl when gave a slap due to which the grip on her became lose and she ran away. She reached her room in the hostel and everything was so unbearable for her that she could not control her and she started weeping due to the heinous activity. She could not get the courage to report the matter to me immediately. In the forenoon of 16th May. 2000, she wanted to contact me In the office of the Provost. Abdullah Hall and then In the Principal's Office of Women's College where myself and the Principal were busy in the meeting with the teachers. Hence she could not manage to speak to any one of us. Hence in the evening, she gave me a ring to which I immediately responded as stated above. I was so shocked to hear the statement of the girl that I was about to faint myself. Somehow I managed to reach the room of Miss Aziza Rizvl in the campus who is also Asstt. Proctor and I asked the girl to reach there from any other side in order toconceal the identity of the girl. At the room, she again gave the details to Miss Aztza. Her condition was obviously so precarious and was self-speaking the crime and the agony to which she had undergone during all that period. I consoled the girl and said that I will take all actions to save the girl from any problem because she was not less than my own daughter. The girl had also contacted the Principal, Women's College on 17.5.2000 and said that Asma has called me to come to a restaurant as Barkat wants to apologise her and that Asma herself will accompany her if she is not able to reach by herself. The girl remained with her and on inquiry we found that Asma was at the gate anxiously waiting for her. The girl remained with us all this time.

As it was very serious thing, hence in order to save the sanctity of the campus of the Abdullah Hall, I myself started inquiry in the matter thoroughly. I started collecting information about the entry of the said Mr. Barkat. Almost all the gatemen told me that Mr. Barkat was a permanent visitor of Miss Asma Parveen and used to stay in her room for several hours. Even on 15.5.2000. the gateman deputed at the Marris Road Gate saw Mr. Barkat entering the campus and going to Asma Parveen's quarter and also when he was going back with Asma Parveen herself. After being convinced, I reported the matter to the Vice-Chancellor. A.M.U. on 19th May. 2000 and also took the girl to the VIce-Chancellor. Miss Asma Parveen had visited the room of the girl in the night of 16.5.2000 and threatened the girl not to tell anything against her or Barkat as it will put the girl to defamation.'

Miss Aziza Rizvi, Assistant Proctor, Abdullah Hall, appeared as P.W. 2. She had also met the girl concerned. She stated that Asma, the petitioner, was her colleague. There was nothing to show that she willmake a false statement in the inquiry proceedings. Prof Mansura Haider. Principal Women's College. A.M.U.. appeared as P.W. 3. She had also called the girl to verify the report and thereafter she had made statement before the Inquiry Authority.

The petitioner was permitted to cross-examine these witnesses but she refused to cross-examine them purporting under protest. The petitioner could have cross-examined in regard to the details which they had stated before the Inquiry Authority. P.W. 1 had given details of the incident as narrated to her by the girl concerned.

There was thus material evidence to support the charges against the petitioner.

(4) It is further urged that the complainant girl should have been produced for examination and cross-examination. The University and the Presenting Officer, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, did not think it proper to produce the complainant girl. The petitioner was a Lecturer in Psychology and the girl was a student of Psychology. Both were residing in Abdullah Hall campus. The complainant girl had narrated in detail her allegations to the Provost of Abdullah Hall, the Principal of the College and the Assistant Proctor. They had made statement as narrated to them by the girl. They were not cross-examined by the petitioner. In Hira Nath Mishra v. Principal. Rajendra Medical College. Ranchi, AIR 1973 SC 1260. wherein the girls, who had made complaints against the male students of the hostel, were not examined, the Supreme Court, on the facts of that case, held that it was wise that the girls should have not been produced and be identified. It was observed :

'However, unsavoury the procedure may appear to a judicial mind, these are facts of life which are to be faced. The girls who were molested that night could not have come forward to give evidence in any regular inquiry and if a strict inquiry like the one conducted in a Court of law were to be imposed in such matters, the girls would have had to go under the constant fear of molestation by the male students who were capable of such indecencies. Under the circumstances. the course followed by the Principal was a wise one. The Committee whose integrity could not be impeached collected and sifted the evidence given by the girls.'

In the East India Hotels v. Their Workmen and others. AIR 1974 SC 696. a complaint was made against the employee that he was pouring whisky bottle into an empty gingerate bottle but the complainant was not produced by the employer and it was urged that non-examination of such witness was fatal but the Court repelled this contention holding that his absence may be due to the fact it was for the employer to take action on his complaint and to protect their prestige and reputation which was mainly their affair.

In Avinash Nagra v. Novodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and others. (1997) 2 SCC 534. the service of the teacher was terminated on the ground of his improper conduct with a girl student. It was urged before the Supreme Court that the girl should have been produced for cross-examination. This contention was rejected. The allegation was that the appellant had misused his position and made sexual advance towards the girl and persuaded her to the room where she locked herself inside, he banged the door.

In Superintendent. Gout. T.B. Sanatorium and another v. J. Srinivasan, (1998) 8 SCC 572, a hospital employee was removed from service on the charge of teasing a patient's wife. The wife did not appear for examination but the Court upheldthe order of removal holding that there was evidence of co-worker and co-patient. which sufficiently established the guilt.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision Hardwari Lai v. State of U. P. and others. JT 1999 (8) SC 418. In this case, the appellant was a constable and he was dismissed on the charge that on the night he was under the influence of liquor and hurled abuses at the police station on a constable Prakash Pandey. The complainant and the witnesses were not produced. It was held that the examination of those witnesses could have revealed as to whether the complaint made by Virendra Singh was correct or not and he was the best person to speak to its veracity. So also, Jagdish Ram, who had accompanied the complainant to the hospital, could have been an important witness to prove the state or the condition of the appellant. This case has no application to the facts of the present case. The girl in question had given complaint and had further narrated the incident to the important witnesses, viz.. the Provost, the Principal of the college and the Assistant Proctor and her examination was rightly avoided by the University.

It may be noted that the petitioner did not examine herself. Three witnesses had given details about her involvement in the incident. She had filed written statement and denied the allegations. She could have controverted the allegations but she deliberately avoided doing so. Had she appeared as a witness, she could have been cross-examined. She never took a defence that she did not know Barkat. On the other hand, she made statement (as recorded in the dally order-sheet of the proceedings) that she could produce Barkat as her defence witness because his visit had been banned in the University campus and. therefore, she could not contact him. A notice was given to her by the Inquiry Authority on 23rd May, 2000 whereby he asked the petitioner to attend the sitting along with her defence documents and also bring her defence witnesses at thesitting of the inquiry on 25th May, 2000. The petitioner had not given list of witnesses indicating the name of Barkat to the Inquiry Authority and she did not complain that he was not permitted to enter the campus of University as a witness.

(5) One of the arguments raised is that the petitioner could not get assistance of Defence Assistant. The Inquiry Authority gave notice dated 23rd May, 2000 to the petitioner asking her to appear for hearing along with her Defence Assistnt. It is not a case that she was not given opportunity to engage a Defence Assistant. She wanted adjournment on 25th May, 2000 on the ground that further time be granted to engage Defence Assistant to defend her case. This was rejected in the facts and circumstances of the case and this was noted in the dally order-sheet of the Inquiry Authority. The complainant girl was under the constant threat and taking into consideration the entire circumstances, it was advisable that the inquiry should be conducted expedltiously. She never asked that the University should provide her with Defence Assistant. The inquiry proceeding was not vitiated because the petitioner herself could not manage to get a Defence Assistant.

(6) Another challenge to the inquiry proceeding is based on the ground that the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Authority to the Vice-Chancellor was not supplied to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the decision Managing Director, E.C.I.L. v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074, wherein it was held that an incumbent has right to receive inquiry report to show that finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer is erroneous, its reason was given as follows :

'The reason why the right to receive the report of the Inquiry Officer is considered as essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer form an important material before the Disciplinary Authority which along with evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusion.'

In Hira Nath Misra's case (supra), one of the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant was that the copy of the inquiry report was not given to the students but the Court did not accept the contention. It was held that the report was not given for the reason for which the girls were not examined in presence of the appellant, prevailed upon the authorities not to give a copy of the report to them and it would have been unwise if the copy of the report was given to them. This case was taken note in paragraph 25 of the judgment and held that if the circumstances so warrant, the Inquiry report is not necessary to be supplied.

Moreover, the petitioner has further to demonstrate that the prejudice has been caused by non-supply of the inquiry report. The evidence was only one way. i. e.. statements of the Provost, the Principal of the college and the Assistant Proctor who narrated the version of the complainant girl. The petitioner neither examined herself nor produced any witness. There was no other material document to take contrary view. If the petitioner had led any'evidence. the Inquiry Officer was to assess the evidence and submit its own finding but where the evidence is ted on behalf of the prosecution and the report along with the evidence is produced before the disciplinary authority, such authority has to consider such evidence and the inquiry report becomes of no much significance. The petitioner has to show what prejudice has been caused due to non-supply of inquiry report vide Union Bank of India v. Vishwambhar, (1996) 6 SCC 415.

The supply of a copy of the inquiry report is considered one of the steps to be followed while observing the principles of natural justice. The principles of natural justice is not strait-jacket or a rigid formula and its application depends upon several factors. In Hari Nath (supra), the Apex Court quoted with approval the observation in Russell v. Duke of Norfolk, (1949) 1 All ER 109 at p. 118. wherein Tucker, L.J. observed :

'There are, in my view, no words which are of universal application to every kind of inquiry and every kind of domestic Tribunal. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter that is being dealt with, and so forth. Accordingly. I do not derive much ,assistance from the definitions of natural justice which have been from time to time used, but, whatever standard is adopted, one essential is that the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case.'

In the present case, considering the entire facts and circumstances, the version of the complainant girl has been accepted and on the entire material placed before us. we do. not find there is any violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the inquiry against the petitioner.

The petitioner has also challenged the jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor to pass the impugned order under Section 19(3) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act, 1920 which provides that the Vice-Chancellor may. if he is of the opinion that immediate action is necessary on any matter, exercise any power conferred on any authority of the University by or under the Act and shall report to such authority the action taken by him on such matter. The complainant girl was under constant threat and in the facts and circumstances of the present case.the Vice-Chancellor wisely took prompt action. The reputation of the Aligarh Muslim University in regard to inmates of the girl hostel was also under publicity. The girl students from far off come and reside In the hostel and if the sanctity of the hostel is affected, no girl would think herself safe in the hostel. The Vice-Chancellor, in these circumstances, was Justified to take prompt action in the matter and he could have exercised the power of taking disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner who was involved in the Incident.

In Sajid Zaheer Amani v. Visitor, Aligarh Muslim University. Aligarh and others, (1990) 1 UPLBEC 270. the services of the petitioner therein were terminated by the Vice-Chancellor relying on sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Aligarh Muslim University Act. It was held that the Vice-Chancellor could pass such an order in regard to termination of service. In Moazziz All Beg v. Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh and Others, 1988 AWC 58, the Division Bench of this Court held that the Vice-Chancellor has power to pass an appropriate order under Section 19(3) of the Aligarh Muslim University Act.

In view of the above discussion we do not find any merit in the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.