DR. I. ISMAIL v. K. SHAMEEM RANI AND ANR. INSC 791

Case Name Dr. I. Ismail vs K. Shameem Rani

Facts The appellant joined the second respondent college as an Assistant Professor in 1978, was promoted to Professor in 1988, and became Principal in 1999. On August 30, 2003, a charge memo containing 31 charges, including allegations of sexual harassment, misuse of power, insubordination, and misappropriation, was served on him. A retired District Judge was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. He reported that most charges were proved against the appellant. The appellant was removed from service by an order dated 2 December, 2005.

The appellant challenged this removal in a writ petition. While pending, a new governing body reinstated him in 2006, leading to the withdrawal of his writ petition. However, a former student and the first respondent challenged the reinstatement through separate writ petitions. The High Court set aside the reinstatement and upheld the removal order in 2009, which the Supreme Court later refused to interfere with.

In 2010, the appellant filed a fresh writ petition challenging the removal order of 2005. A Single Judge allowed the petition on procedural grounds, holding that the respondent had failed to comply with the Vishaka Guidelines for dealing with sexual harassment at the workplace. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision and restored the removal order. The review petition filed by the appellant was also dismissed.

After the passage of 1,186 days, which were the subject matters of the current appeals, the appellant filed his SLP with the Supreme Court.

Issues Whether the appellant's SLP was liable to be admitted when there was an inordinate delay of filing the same. Whether the removal order of 2005 was valid, both procedurally and substantively. Holding The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals based on the delay and lack of merit. The Court:

Found no cogent reason for the delay of more than three years before the SLPs were filed. Confirmed the judgment of the High Court that the removal order was one that was proper, valid, and suffers from no infirmities in law. Reasoning The Supreme Court observed: Delay in Filing: The Appellant could not provide a satisfactory justification for the delay in filing SLPs. Such a condonation of delay is, therefore, not justified . Merit of the Case: The High Court had comprehensively dealt with the substantive issues, which included the principle of res judicata and the procedural validity of the removal order. The Division Bench affirmed the removal order after finding most charges, including sexual harassment, well-founded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the governing body. No Procedural Infirmity: While the Single Judge relied upon procedural infirmities in accordance with the Vishaka Guidelines, the Division Bench held that the order of removal was already declared proper and valid in earlier proceedings. In these circumstances, the Court declined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeals.