{"id":1108,"date":"2025-11-03T12:21:46","date_gmt":"2025-11-03T06:51:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/?p=1108"},"modified":"2025-11-03T11:56:31","modified_gmt":"2025-11-03T06:26:31","slug":"restore-job-amid-sexual-harassment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shoneekapoor.com\/legal-news\/restore-job-amid-sexual-harassment\/","title":{"rendered":"MP High Court Restores Professor\u2019s Job Amid Sexual Harassment Case: “Relationship With Female Student Began Years Before She Joined University”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the termination of a university professor accused of sexual harassment, noting that his relationship with the complainant existed long before she became a student. The Court called the university\u2019s probe \u201cillegal\u201d and ordered his reinstatement.<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

JABALPUR<\/em>: The Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/strong> has given major relief to Professor Rakesh Singh<\/strong>, who was dismissed by the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University (IGNTU)<\/strong> after being accused of sexually exploiting a student.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Justice<\/strong> Vivek Jain<\/strong> ruled that the relationship between the professor and the woman was not connected to her being a student<\/strong>, as it had started many years before she joined the university. The Court clearly said that the university had no right to interfere in their private lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe University seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that the University had no business to inquire into the relationship between the petitioner and complainant once the complainant stated that relationship was going on since the year 2013 and she became a student of the University for the first time on 02.03.2021.What the petitioner being a married person and the complainant being a 30 year old married lady did in their private life, was not the lookout of the university in any manner whatsoever, once the relationship was being alleged to be going on since the year 2013 and sexual relations alleged to be going on since the year 2019,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Background of the Case<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Rakesh Singh<\/strong>, who was the Head of the Department of History<\/strong>, was accused of sexual harassment<\/a> and rape by a woman who later became a research scholar<\/strong> at IGNTU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The woman alleged that Singh had sexually exploited her and claimed she became pregnant. Acting on her complaint, the university\u2019s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)<\/strong> conducted an inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2022, the ICC found the complaint \u201csubstantiated\u201d, which led to a chargesheet<\/strong> and then to Singh\u2019s termination<\/strong> after an internal inquiry. Singh, however, challenged the decision before the High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor\u2019s Defence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Singh argued that the ICC was not properly formed<\/strong>, as some members did not participate in the proceedings \u2014 one was on maternity leave<\/strong>, and another had to step aside because of bias allegations<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He also pointed out that the POSH Act<\/a><\/strong> was not applicable in his case because the woman was not a student<\/strong> at the time the alleged acts occurred. Singh had already been acquitted<\/strong> of the rape charges by a sessions court earlier this year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Court\u2019s Observations<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court agreed that the matter was more of a personal relationship<\/strong> rather than workplace harassment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It held that the ICC was illegally constituted<\/strong> because it lacked the required number of valid members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cTherefore, the ICC had practically only 5 members and in the opinion of this Court, the said ICC was utterly illegal committee being constituted contrary to provisions of UGC regulations,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The Court further found serious irregularities in how the ICC report was prepared and signed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cA majority of the ICC members had not properly signed the final report, and the signatures of two members had been obtained on blank sheets.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The judge was highly critical of the report, saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cA totally farce and bogus document.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Because of these lapses, the Court said the ICC\u2019s findings could not be relied upon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the Alleged Misconduct and Other Charges<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The High Court noted that Singh could not be blamed for evading arrest<\/strong> or seeking bail<\/strong>, as he was already suspended<\/strong> and had every right to use legal remedies<\/strong>. It also dismissed the charge of \u201cmisconduct\u201d over his social media posts<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cIn the opinion of this court once the petitioner was of the opinion that he is being oppressed by the University and he made some social media posts then it does not amount to any misconduct, more so when from the report of the inquiry officer there is nothing to be seen that what was the actual social media posts made by the petitioner, nor print-outs of such posts are available in D.E. record as submitted by the University before this Court,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, the Court said one issue \u2014 the alleged leakage of a question paper<\/strong> \u2014 still needed to be investigated again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Restores
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cIn the opinion of this Court, this issue requires to be dealt with by the University authorities in detail by considering the fact that whether the question papers which are said to be leaked were framed by the petitioner and he was the paper setter of these question papers and further that whether the paper setter had shared the question papers with the petitioner and under what circumstances the petitioner came in possession of the question papers if these were not framed by him, if he was not the paper setter. The inquiry report is utterly silent on all these aspects. It is also to be assessed that whether there is academic practice in the University to share important questions before the examination which has also not been looked into in the impugned order or in the inquiry report in any manner,\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Final Order<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After examining all the records, the Court cancelled most of the charges<\/strong> against the professor and ordered his reinstatement<\/strong>, except for the pending inquiry on the question paper issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cLet the petitioner be reinstated in service forthwith and would remain under suspension till fresh order is passed as to charge No.5, as he was under suspension till date of earlier dismissal order.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Thus, the High Court partly allowed Singh\u2019s plea<\/strong>, finding the university\u2019s actions harsh, irregular, and contrary to legal procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Explanatory Table \u2013 Laws and Sections Mentioned<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law \/ Regulation<\/strong><\/td>Full Name<\/strong><\/td>Relevant Section \/ Concept<\/strong><\/td>Explanation (in Simple Indian English)<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead>
POSH Act, 2013<\/strong><\/td>Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013<\/em><\/td>Section 2(n), Section 4, Section 9<\/td>This law protects women from sexual harassment at their workplace. It defines what sexual harassment means, how complaints can be made, and requires every institution to have an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)<\/strong> to handle such cases. The HC said this Act did not apply<\/strong> because the woman was not a student<\/strong> of the university when the alleged acts occurred.<\/td><\/tr>
UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015<\/strong><\/td>Issued by the University Grants Commission<\/td>Clause 4 \u2013 Constitution of ICC<\/td>The Court said the university\u2019s ICC was not properly formed<\/strong> as per UGC Regulations. Only 5 members<\/strong> participated instead of the full quorum. This made the inquiry \u201cillegal.\u201d<\/td><\/tr>
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860<\/strong><\/td>General criminal law<\/td>Section 376 \u2013 Rape<\/td>The woman had also filed a rape case<\/strong> under Section 376 IPC. However, the professor was acquitted<\/strong> by the Sessions Court earlier in 2025.<\/td><\/tr>
Constitution of India<\/a><\/strong><\/td>Fundamental rights & administrative powers<\/td>Article 226<\/td>The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction<\/strong> under Article 226 to review the university\u2019s decision and provide relief to the petitioner.<\/td><\/tr>
Service & Employment Law Principles<\/strong><\/td>Natural Justice<\/td>\u2014<\/td>The HC found violation of principles of natural justice<\/strong> \u2014 meaning the inquiry was unfair and conducted by an illegally constituted ICC<\/strong>.<\/td><\/tr>
Academic \/ University Practice<\/strong><\/td>University examination norms<\/td>\u2014<\/td>The court noted that the allegation of question paper leak<\/strong> needed proper reconsideration because sharing \u201cimportant questions\u201d before exams was apparently a common academic practice<\/strong> at IGNTU.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Case Summary<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case Title:<\/strong> Rakesh Singh v. Indira Gandhi National Tribal University & Ors.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n