Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner impugns the order dated 01.07.2011 of the Executive Council of the University of Delhi accepting the report dated 31.08.2010 of the Apex Complaints Committee constituted under Ordinance XXV -D of the Calendar of University of Delhi, finding the Respondent No. 2 Professor Ajay Tiwari guilty of meeting out sexual harassment to the Petitioner and imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from University service on him.
(2.) IT is the case of the Petitioner that the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by the Executive Council of the University is grossly lenient and inadequate considering the gravity of the issue and the need for such punishment to be deterrent. Reliance is placed on Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra : (1999) 1 SCC 759 where it was observed that cases of sexual harassment are to be dealt with great sensitivity and sympathy or mercy towards the offender is misplaced. The counsel for the Petitioner has further urged that the punishment of compulsory retirement would not deprive the Respondent No. 2 of his retiral benefits and thus the University has been soft on the Respondent No. 2 when the conduct of the Respondent No. 2 deserved the harshest punishment of dismissal from service. At the outset, the age of the Respondent No. 2 has been enquired. It is informed that he is about 55 years of age. It has further been enquired as to till what age, the Respondent No. 2 would have continued in the employment of the University but for being compulsorily retired. Though the counsel for the Petitioner states that the Respondent No. 2 would have continued in employment till the age of 65 years i.e. for another 10 years but the counsel for the University appearing on advance notice informs that the retirement age is 62 years only, though there is a provision of extension till the age of 65 years.
(3.) THE Respondent No. 2, by punishment meted out to him, having been thus deprived of further seven years if not ten years of his employment, besides social stigma, it is felt that the punishment of compulsory retirement cannot be said to be a very lenient punishment, though of course the punishment of dismissal from service which also could have been imposed by the Executive Council of the University on the Respondent No. 2 would have been harsher.;