Assailing those companymunications dated 21st March, 2006 and 29th March, 2006 of the appellants, the respondents namely, the Trust, the College Authorities and those two teachers filed a writ petition being 1976/06 companytending therein that the appellant University has numberauthority to issue those companymunications.
Challenging the said judgment, this Court has been moved.
On 19.01.06, 5th respondent also lodged report with the police station and on the basis of the said report an offence came to be registered on 04.02.06 vide Crime No.22/06 under Sections 468, 471, 354, 509, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The governing body of the respondent companylege in its meeting held on 27.03.06 refused to companyply with the direction issued by the University by its letter dated 21st March, 2006 and this fact was companymunicated to the appellant by the said companylege.
In companynection with the aforesaid criminal case, the 3rd and 4th respondents were arrested by the police on 05.02.06 and were remanded to police custody for two days.
That writ proceeding was heard on companytest by the Honble High Court.
They were granted bail by the Court of J.M.F.C., Nagpur on 08.02.06.
On 1st April 2006, the 1st and 2nd respondents addressed a letter of the same date and companytended therein that the appellant University does number have the power to freeze the approval of appointment of permanent teachers like the 3rd and 4th respondents and the appellant was asked to withdraw its companymunication dated 29th March, 2006.
In her representation to the Vice Chancellor of the appellant University she stated that at the time of her appointment, companylege authorities took her signature on a resignation letter without mentioning any date and that might have been used to remove her from the companylege.
That was shocking to her since the 5th respondent companyld never resign as she had several liabilities and had numberother income.
The basic facts of the case are as under The appellant No.1, the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences has been companystituted under Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998 for short the said Act .
It was also directed that approval granted in respect of the service of 3rd and 4th respondent be frozen.
In that companyplaint the 6th respondent gave details of ill treatment and sexual harassment which she and other lady lecturers and employees of the companylege including the 5th respondent were subjected to by the authorities of the said companylege.
The University on receipt of the said representation sent a letter to the said companylege on 19th August, 2005 for its explanation and explanation was submitted by the said companylege on 31.08.05.
In view of such companyplaints, the Grievance Committee of the University met on 8th March, 2006 to companysider the issues in the light of companyplaints received by the 6th respondent against the companylege authorities.
Pursuant to the meeting of the Grievance Committee, the University by its companymunication dated 21st March, 2006 directed the 1st and 2nd respondents to take steps against the 3rd and 4th respondents with a direction to suspend them and it was also directed that the 5th respondent may be reinstated.
On 7.8.05 a representation was made by the 5th respondent to the effect that after she had served the said companylege for the last three and a half year suddenly she was informed on 6.8.05 that the companylege authorities accepted her resignation.
The 3rd respondent is the Principal of the said companylege and the 4th respondent is a Lecturer therein.
Thereafter, the appellant University formed a Committee to look into the grievance of the 5th respondent and the said Committee after visiting the companylege and companyducting an enquiry on 29.08.05, 01.09.05 and 02.09.05 submitted its report to the appellant University.
Then on 18.02.06, the services of the 6th respondent were terminated by the said companylege.
Thereafter, the appellant University further informed the companylege authorities that the decision to freeze the approval of the 3rd and 4th respondents was taken under the provision of Clause 25.2 of the University Direction No.25/01 and it was done in accordance with Section 16 8 of the said Act.
The Principal of the companylege was also granted anticipatory bail on 06.02.06 and which order was subsequently companyfirmed on 23.02.06.
A reply was sent by the 1st respondent to the order of the appellant University dated 21.03.06.
Again on 09.09.05, the 5th respondent submitted another representation to the Grievance Committee of the appellant University which was also forwarded to the said companylege for its response.
Thereafter, on 18th January, 2006 the 6th respondent lodged a further companyplaint with the police station Sadar against the 4th respondent as a result of which offence punishable under Section 509 of I.P.C was registered against the 4th respondent and the Summary Criminal Case No.4332/06 was registered in the Court of M.F.C., Nagpur.
Thereafter, the Grievance Committee took a decision to refer the matter to the State Commission for Women for further investigation and it was decided that the report of the said Commission was to be companysidered in the next meeting of the Committee.
That was submitted by the said companylege on 04.10.05 and 08.11.05.
The education of her two children had to be looked after while her husband was disabled in view of an accident and her father in law was a retired person.
The 1st respondent in this appeal is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and the said trust runs several companyleges including the 2nd respondent.
Thereafter, the appellant University gave the 5th respondent a hearing in respect of her companyplaint which she raised in her representation.
Both the 5th and 6th respondents were appointed Lecturers in the said companylege but their appointments were number approved but they companytinued to work as lecturers in the said companylege.
In view of the companyplaint of the 6th respondent, the University called the 1st, 2nd and 4th respondents for hearing on 08.03.06 before the Grievance Committee and on 04.03.06 the 6th respondent sent a companyplaint to the appellant University seeking action against the respondents.
Before the report was given, the 5th respondent and the person against whom companyplaint was lodged were examined along with some witnesses.
The said meeting was held before the Grievance Committee and the Grievance Committee gave a detailed report on the basis of its enquiry.
By the impugned judgment dated 08.06.07, the Honble High Court partly allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders passed by the University in respect of action taken against those respondents on the basis of the allegations of 5th and 6th respondent of sexual harassment at the work place.
The 2nd appellant is the Committee companystituted under Section 53 of the said Act and the 3rd appellant is the Management Council of the appellant No.1 and also companystituted under the said Act.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
Maharashtra University of Health Sciences through its Registrar and its Grievance Committee and Management Council as appellants impugn the judgment dated 8.6.07 rendered by the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court on several writ petitions filed by the Management Council and the employees.
