Sir,
I am Principal of a college which is run and funded by the Govt. of Assam as per its Provincialised College Management Rules.
In the year 2014 a false allegation was raised of sending a s*xually abusive mail to the female librarian by a group of my college teachers. This was done due to their vested interests. I had filed an FIR regarding this matter.
The college Governing Body had constituted an inquiry committee.The committee had also submitted its report that the email was a spam mail.
But the complainants were dissatisfied with the report and demanded enquiry as per the s*xual harassment Act 2013 and accordingly the College Governing Body constituted an ICC for enquiry. But the ICC was not as per the Act.
In the meantime I wrote to the Superintendent of Police of the District requesting him to forward the matter to the CID for proper enquiry. The enquiry report submitted by the CID to the SP of the district clearly stated that no such mail was sent from my mail ID and the mail received by the lady librarian was a spam mail. But the ICC constituted by the College Governing Body did not accept the report and continued their enquiry.
I had informed the details to the Director of Higher Education and on receipt of my application he constituted another ICC as he is the appointing authority and as per the Act the Director of Higher Education, being employer, is authorized to constitute the ICC . But the Complainant teachers, to fulfill their vested interest filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the authority of the Director to constitute the ICC.
The Case was dismissed with the verdict that the Director of Higher Education being the appointing authority is the employer and as per the Act he is authorised to constitute the ICC.
But two members of the ICC constituted by the Governing Body challenged the verdict by filing a writ appeal in the division bench of the High Court.
While the case was pending before the High Court, in the mean time, one of the member who filed the Writ petition became the President of the Governing Body (GB) by using his political power. As a result the President was always trying to prove that the Principal is a characterless person and should be removed from the post of principal of the college.
In 2019 the division bench issued its verdict that as per the college management rule the Governing body is empowered to look into the day to day affairs of the college and discipline. hence the Governing Body is the employer in the context of the Sexual Harassment Act 2013. The Division Bench also issued order to constitute a fresh ICC to do justice over the issue and rejected both the ICCs made by the DHE and the Governing Body as both were not as per the concerned Act. However the High court debarred the present President to preside over the meeting in which the ICC would be formed.
But violating the verdict of the court he presided over the GB meeting and formed an ICC violating the concerned Act 2013 with his own people.
The constitution of this ICC was Challenged by me in the High Court.
The High Court dismissed the ICC and ordered to form a fresh committee.
The President the remained present in the meeting and the meeting was presided over by the local MLA and kept the same composition of the ICC.
This was again challenged by filing a writ as the composition was not as per the Act. The case is pending.
in the interim order the court allowed the ICC to continue its enquiry with a caution that no coercive action can be taken by the GB against the petitioner until the final verdict of the case.
the committee had 5 members: one presiding officer form other college, one member from NGO, and three members from other colleges who are not at all related to the college.
Out of these 5 members two members resigned from the committee with allegations that the ICC formed by the Governing Body was being dictated from outside by the present President of th GB and the ICC was acting with its biasness against the respondent Principal and towards the complainants.
though the minimum members required for the ICC to function, the ICC submitted its report with only three members stating that the Principal is found guilty and should be removed from the post. The President forwarded the report to the Director for appropriate action on the basis of the report of the ICC.
Such absurd report without giving me any opportunity to submit my defense was again challenged in the High Court by filing a writ petition.
Later on the GB conducted an emergent meeting and in that meeting resolved to remove me from the post of principal and forwarded the resolution for early action on the basis of the report.
This action of the GB and the illegal resolution was again challenged by filing another Writ.
After the stay order on the resolution the GB hold another emergent meeting and resolved for suspension of the principal on the basis of the report of the ICC. This was again challenged in the High Court by filing another Writ.
Now my retirement is nearing and to fulfill his intention to cause me harm in all possible way he had put his remark on my service book that the disciplinary action against the Principal is pending and shall remain pending till the verdict of writ petition filed by the principal in the high court petition is passed. The office of the Principal is the custodian and he took my service book without my knowledge asking the office assistant to send it to him and made remarks without any intimation to me.
He did it so that I am harassed in getting my retirement benefits from the Govt.
Under the above circumstances I solicit suggestions/advice from learned advocates to get rid of the problem.
