- (1.) This writ petition is directed against the communication dated 7.4.2016, whereby the Senior Deputy Registrar (Academic), Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur has apprised the petitioner of the decision taken by the Senate terminating his programme of Bachelor of Science (B.S.) in Physics. The decision of the Senate has not been filed alongwith the writ petition nor has been brought on record alongwith the counter affidavit. However, it appears from the record that the Senate Students' Affairs Committee, which is a standing committee of the Senate, in its meeting held on 30.3.2016 had concurred with the recommendations made by the Women Cell for terminating the academic programme of the petitioner. The findings of the Women Cell and its recommendation has been brought on record at pages 181-182 of the writ petition, according to which, the petitioner was found guilty of the charge of sexual harassment of a girl colleague (whose name is not being disclosed for purposes of ensuring confidentiality).
(2.) The entire decision making process leading to the impugned action of the Senate has been challenged before this Court on ground of breach of principles of natural justice. It is contended that the Women Cell, which held the inquiry, did not provide copy of the documents on basis of which it found the petitioner guilty of the charge of sexual harassment. It is further submitted that the petitioner in his reply submitted before the Women Cell specifically refuted all the charges and sought permission to examine witnesses in support of his case, but the petitioner was not granted opportunity to examine those witnesses. It is further pointed out that the report of the Women Cell recording prima facie satisfaction of existence of sufficient material to proceed against the petitioner was also not made available to him, thus depriving the petitioner of his right to make representation against the same. Likewise, the final report of the Women Cell, against which the petitioner has a right to file an appeal under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013, was also not supplied, thus depriving the petitioner of his valuable right to file appeal against the same.
(3.) Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur submitted that the petitioner, before approaching this Court, had preferred an appeal before the Senate, as provided under Ordinance 9.10, which reads as under:- "9.10. A defaulting student who feels aggrieved with the punishment awarded may prefer an appeal to the Chairman, Senate stating clearly the reasons why the punishment should not be awarded. The Senate shall prescribe the procedure to process such an appeal." It is urged that in view of the fact that the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy provided under the Ordinance, therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;