Allahabad High Court Reinstates MNNIT Lecturer, Calls Dismissal for Consensual Relationship “Shockingly Disproportionate”
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has set aside a nearly two-decade-old dismissal order against a lecturer of the **Motilal Nehru National Institute of Technology (MNNIT), Allahabad, holding that the punishment imposed for a consensual personal relationship with a former student was “shockingly disproportionate” and legally unsustainable.
Allowing a writ petition filed by Rajesh Singh, a lecturer in the Department of Computer Science and Engineering appointed in 1999, Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery ruled that while the conduct attributed to the petitioner may amount to misconduct and fall short of the moral standards expected from a teacher, it could not be categorised as sexual harassment, nor did it justify the extreme penalty of dismissal from service.
Background of the Case
The disciplinary action against Singh stemmed from a complaint filed in 2003 by a former student, who had completed her Master of Computer Education course between 1997 and 2000.
In her complaint, lodged three years after she had left the institute, the student alleged emotional and physical harassment and claimed that the lecturer had forced a physical relationship upon her during her student years.
The complaint was also filed after Singh’s engagement to another woman, a fact noted by the court.
Initially, a five-member committee constituted by the institute expressed reservations about adjudicating allegations of rape and took note of the significant delay in filing the complaint.
Subsequently, MNNIT appointed a one-member inquiry commission headed by a retired judge.
During the inquiry, Singh admitted to being in a relationship with the complainant but consistently maintained that it was consensual and continued even after she had ceased to be a student at the institute.
Relying on the inquiry report, MNNIT terminated Singh’s services on February 28, 2006, citing immoral conduct and an apprehension that he might indulge in similar misconduct in the future.
Challenge to the Termination
Challenging the dismissal, the petitioner argued that the disciplinary proceedings were fundamentally flawed and violated the principles of natural justice.
He pointed out that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and that no criminal case was ever registered against him.
He further submitted that the inquiry findings did not establish sexual harassment, coercion, or assault, but at most alleged immoral conduct and favoritism.
The institute, however, defended its decision, asserting that a teacher holds a position of trust and authority and that any intimate relationship with a student — past or present — undermines the ethical foundation of an academic institution.
Since the petitioner had admitted to the relationship, MNNIT argued, the inquiry could not be faulted, and dismissal was an appropriate response.
Court’s Findings
After a detailed examination of the record, the High Court found that the relationship appeared to be consensual and had continued for over three years after the complainant had left the institute.
Importantly, the court noted that no FIR was lodged and no criminal prosecution followed the allegations, casting serious doubt on the claim of forced physical relations.
The court observed that the dispute appeared to have arisen after a proposed marriage between the parties failed due to inter-religious differences and opposition from their families.
It remarked that, at best, the facts could fall within the realm of a dispute arising from a failed promise of marriage, but the allegation of coercion or sexual harassment did not inspire confidence.
Crucially, the court held that the dismissal was imposed largely on speculative apprehensions of possible future misconduct rather than on any continuing or repeated violation.
While acknowledging that Singh’s conduct did not conform to the high moral expectations associated with the teaching profession, the court emphasised that not every moral lapse warrants the harshest punishment available under service law.
Relief Granted
Terming the punishment “shockingly disproportionate,” the High Court quashed the termination order dated February 28, 2006.
However, it stopped short of granting complete exoneration. Instead, the matter was remanded to the competent authority of MNNIT to reconsider the quantum of punishment and impose a penalty, if any, that is proportionate and in accordance with law.
The judgment, delivered on December 16, underscores the judiciary’s consistent emphasis on proportionality in disciplinary matters and draws a clear distinction between consensual relationships amounting to misconduct and acts constituting sexual harassment.
#AllahabadHighCourt #MNNIT #ServiceLaw #Proportionality #NaturalJustice #AcademicEthics #JudicialReview #DisciplinaryProceedings #RuleOfLaw
