The Allahabad High Court held that a consensual teacher–student relationship amounted to moral misconduct, not sexual harassment, and ruled that dismissal with disqualification was shockingly disproportionate, directing MNNIT to reconsider the punishment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has held that termination from service of a Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT) lecturer for a consensual relationship with a student was “shockingly disproportionate”, and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment.
A Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery observed that while the institute was justified in taking disciplinary action for breach of the sanctity of the teacher–student relationship, the extreme penalty of dismissal with disqualification from future employment could not be sustained under the facts of the case.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Singh, joined MNNIT Allahabad in 1999 as a Lecturer in the Computer Science and Engineering Department. In February 2006, he was dismissed from service following a complaint by a former female student, alleging that Singh had an improper relationship with her during her student years.
Although the complainant initially alleged coercion, she later admitted that the relationship was consensual and continued for nearly three years even after she left the institute. Notably, no criminal complaint or FIR was ever registered against the lecturer.
Following the complaint:
- MNNIT constituted a five-member committee, which did not return any conclusive finding of sexual assault.
- Singh was placed under suspension.
- Subsequently, a One-Man Inquiry Commission, headed by a former High Court judge, was appointed.
The Commission concluded that Singh had committed gross misconduct by showing “special favour” to the student and engaging in a physical relationship while she was enrolled at the institute. Stressing societal expectations from teachers and the sanctity of the teacher–student relationship, the Commission recommended termination from service.
Accepting this recommendation, the Board of Governors dismissed Singh with disqualification from future employment.
Challenge Before the Allahabad High Court
Before the High Court, Singh challenged the dismissal primarily on the ground that the institute had bypassed the disciplinary procedure prescribed under its own service rules. He argued that:
- No charge sheet was issued
- No inquiry officer or presenting officer was appointed
- He was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses
The Court agreed that the prescribed disciplinary procedure was not followed. However, it held that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner since he had admitted to the relationship, and even a full-fledged inquiry would not have materially altered the finding of misconduct.
Court’s Observations
The central issue before the Court was whether the nature of misconduct justified dismissal with disqualification.
The Bench made several crucial observations:
- The relationship was admittedly consensual
- No FIR or criminal case was ever lodged
- The complaint was filed several years after the student left the institute, following the breakdown of the relationship
- The case did not amount to sexual harassment under service rules, but was one of moral impropriety
- There were no other complaints against the lecturer during his service tenure
The Court noted:
“No doubt the petitioner has not followed or kept high standard of morality but there is another factor that except the said allegation there is no other allegation against petitioner despite he was doing job for almost three years before the order of termination was passed.”
The Bench further observed that had the petitioner married the complainant, the complaint may never have been filed, underscoring the personal nature of the dispute.
While affirming that Singh failed to maintain the high moral standards expected of a teacher, the Court held that:
“Termination from service with disqualification is shockingly disproportionate.”
Accordingly, the Allahabad High Court:
- Set aside the punishment only to the extent of quantum
- Remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority of MNNIT
- Directed reconsideration of the penalty, indicating that the case may warrant a lesser or minor punishment instead of dismissal
The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
ALSO READ: There Are Sita Maiyas But There Are Surpanakhas As Well in the Society: Ex-CJI UU Lalit Over False Allegations Against Men
Case Title:
Case Title: Rajesh Singh vs Board of Governors, Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology and another
WRIT – A No. – 19080 of 2006
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Fake Rape