The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a Delhi University faculty member accused of demanding bribes in the form of cash and luxury items from students in exchange for marks and attendance.
Justice Jasmeet Singh, in a verdict delivered on September 12, described the misconduct as “grave” and an act that struck “at the core of academic integrity.”
The case dates back to 2008 when several students accused the petitioner, then a reader in the commerce department of a DU-affiliated college, of demanding illegal gratification. Items allegedly sought included cash, a cell phone, pearl strings, diamond earrings, and even a saree. In return, she was said to offer favours such as marking attendance and awarding higher grades.
The petitioner denied the allegations, calling them fabricated and part of a conspiracy to oust her. She also contested the authenticity of audio recordings submitted as evidence, claiming they had been edited.
Following the allegations, the college and university set up an inquiry committee, which upheld the charges of misconduct. An appeals committee later confirmed the findings but reduced the punishment from dismissal to termination, allowing the faculty member to access her retirement benefits.
The High Court observed that the appeals committee had already extended leniency by converting dismissal into termination, thereby balancing justice with equity.
Rejecting the plea for further relief, Justice Singh noted:
“To further substitute termination with voluntary retirement would amount to rewriting or modifying the award, which is impermissible.”
The court held that the inquiry proceedings were fair, the findings were supported by evidence, and the penalty had been tempered with leniency. The petitioner’s arguments alleging violation of statutory safeguards, improper constitution of the inquiry, fabricated evidence, and denial of legal assistance were also dismissed.
Concluding the matter, the High Court said the appeals committee had appropriately applied its mind by considering both the evidence and the need for equity.
