D.Ramakishnan v. Indian Institute Of Technology Bombay And 6 ORS.

2 wp 1625 of 2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1625 OF 2019 D. Ramakishnan ...

Petitioner versus Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay and Ors.

...

Respondents Mr. A.

V.Bukhari, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pinaz Contractor, Mr. B. V.Bukhari, Ms.

Fauzia Bukhari, for Petitioner.

Mr. A. Mishra i/by M/s. M.

V.Kini and Co., for Respondent No.1.

Ms. Rouble Sorkkar i/by Ms. Veena Gowda, for Respondent No.7. CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ.

DATE:

th AUGUST, 2019 P.C.:

1.

The Petitioner is a Professor of IIT, Mumbai. He is facing departmental inquiry in relation to allegation of sexual harassment. He has approached at the stage where disciplinary authority has issued a show cause notice why the punishment of compulsory retirement should not be imposed on him. Only on the ground that the Petition is directed against the show cause notice, we are not interfering at this stage. The Petitioner would have full liberty to make a representation against the said proposal. If the Petitioner wishes to make any additional representation to one already made so far before the disciplinary authority he may make the same within a period of four weeks from today with a copy to the original complainant. In facts of the present SSP 1/2

2 wp 1625 of 2019.doc case, it is provided that the disciplinary authority shall grant personal hearing to the Petitioner. Needless to add, all contentions of the Petitioner on law and facts are kept open. The disciplinary authority may pass final order within three months from today. 2.

With these directions and observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J. ) SSP 2/2