By Anuradha Gandhi and Isha Sharma
Introduction
The question whether a consensual relationship between a teacher and a student can amount to sexual harassment or professional misconduct continues to pose complex legal and ethical challenges. More so, when such a relationship is admitted by both parties, it extends beyond academic tenure, and no criminal complaint is lodged.
This article examines whether in such circumstances, disciplinary action or major penalties can be imposed solely on the basis of morality or perceived ethical standards.
The discussion draws from judicial reasoning in a case concerning a lecturer whose services were terminated following a complaint by a former female student.[1]
Background of the Case
In the case under discussion[2], a lecturer employed with a reputed educational institute was terminated from service on the basis of a complaint filed by a former female student. The complaint alleged that while she was a student, she entered into a physical relationship with the lecturer/accused. Importantly, the relationship continued even after she left the institute and allegedly lasted for over three years.
It was further stated that a symbolic marriage ceremony had allegedly taken place between them but since the parties belonged to different religion, a proper solemnization of a formal marriage could not happen. As a result, the relationship eventually broke down. Subsequently, the complainant alleged that she had been subjected to physical and emotional harassment and hence filed a complaint before the institute.
Based on the allegations, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the lecturer/accused.
Institutional Inquiry and Disciplinary Action
Upon receipt of the said complaint, the Institute initially constituted a Five Members Committee to examine the allegations. The Committee, in its report, recorded that
“they do not have expertise to establish a fact that any rape was committed and that petitioner (accused) and complainant were in relationship even after complainant left the Institute and complaint was filed only when petitioner (accused) was engaged with some other girl in November, 2002. No specific conclusion was made in the report.”
Notably, the committee did not arrive at any definitive finding of guilt or misconduct. Despite the absence of specific findings, the accused/lecturer was placed under suspension.
Subsequently, the Institute constituted a One Man Inquiry Commission headed by Hon’ble Justice N.L. Ganguly, Former Judge, Allahabad High Court. The Commission submitted its final report holding the lecturer guilty of misconduct on the following grounds:
- He had allegedly shown special favour to the complainant when she was a student in the Institute by giving her special lessons for home work and would question on the said subject on the following day which act was an act of special favour shown by him to the complainant. This was not done in case of any other girl student or boy student.
- His conduct as a lecturer of the Institute and having affair with his student, calling her to participate in birth-day celebration, was contrary to the tenets of relationship of student and teacher.
- His act of physical relationship with his student was considered to be an immoral conduct and it was found to be contrary to the values of a teacher in society.
On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, it was proposed that the lecturer be terminated from services.
‘I suggest that proper punishment would be termination from service so that he may be able to do other job in places other than educational institutions.”- the commission report.
Relying on this report, the Director of the Institute passed an order dismissing the lecturer from service along with disqualification from future employment.
Appeal Before the Allahabad High Court
Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the lecturer approached the High Court, challenging the action on multiple grounds, including:
- Violation of Service Rules: The Institute had completely disregarded its own service rules. There was no provision permitting the constitution of a One Man Inquiry Commission and such a report could only be a supporting document and could not be a basis to take action against the accused.
- Absence of Charge Sheet: No charge sheet was issued to the accused, depriving him of a clear articulation of charges and an opportunity to defend himself effectively.
- Non-Compliance with Prescribed Procedure: A detailed disciplinary procedure was prescribed under the service rules, which was not admittedly followed, rendering the termination order illegal and arbitrary.
Findings of the Court on Procedural Lapses
The High Court acknowledged the procedural irregularities but observed that the accused/lecturer had substantially admitted to the existence of a relationship with the complainant. Since the accused himself accepted that the relationship commenced when the complainant was a student and continued for several months thereafter-even extending beyond her tenure at the institute- the court held that the procedural deviation did not cause such prejudice as would vitiate the inquiry altogether.
Given the admitted facts, it could not be said that the outcome of the inquiry would have been different had the prescribed procedure been strictly followed. Thus, the court declined to interfere with the disciplinary action solely on the ground of procedural lapses.
Core Legal Issue: Can Consensual Relationship invite major penalty?
The Court then proceeded to examine the more substantive question: whether in circumstances where the complainant was a walling participant in the relationship, and where the relationship continued for nearly three years after she left the institute, a complaint made after such a lapse of time could justify the imposition of a major penalty?[3]
Significantly, the court made several critical observations. One of them being that no FIR had been lodged by the complainant alleging sexual assault or rape.
“On the basis of material on record maximum it can be a case of false promise of marriage but to contend by complainant that she was forced to enter into physical relationship about three and half years ago even though she remained in relationship with petitioner (accused) for more than three years does not inspire confidence”, the court remarked.
In light of the above facts and circumstances, the court finds that the only reason to terminate the accused from service with disqualification is ‘morality’ i.e., a standard of morality is required to be maintained by a teacher with their students. [4]
‘No doubt the petitioner (accused) 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 the petitioner despite he was doing job for almost three years before the order of termination was passed. In case petitioner got married with a complainant after their relationship of three years, possibly no complaint was filed.
Therefore, court finds that morality has to be judged on further conduct of petitioner also and since there is no other complaint placed on record therefore, the court finds that punishment is shockingly disproportionate.
Key Observations of the court
- Morality cannot be judged in isolation
- The case did not fall within the ambit of sexual harassment
- It was a case of a consensual relationship which continued long after the complainant ceased to be a student
- Imposition of dismissal with disqualification was shockingly disproportionate
- While the conduct may warrant moral censure or minor disciplinary action, it did not justify a major penalty
This judgment underscores a crucial legal principle: Institutions cannot equate consensual relationships with sexual harassment solely on moral grounds, nor can they impose disproportionate penalties without establishing coercion, abuse of power or authority or violation of statutory procedures.
Prateek Chandgothia, Junior Associate Advocate at S.S. Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[2] RS Vs. Board of Governors, MNN Institute and another