Allahabad High Court Grants Relief To University Employee Terminated After Accusing Registrar Of Sexual Harassment

The Allahabad High Court has recently granted relief to the Private Secretary to the Vice Chancellor of Gautam Budh University, who was terminated from service after she filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the Registrar of the University.

After the petitioner challenged her termination before the High Court, it was set aside, and the matter was remanded. Thereafter, the petitioner was again terminated. This continued over four times till the present Court ordered her reinstatement. While directing her reinstatement, Justice Manju Rani Chauhan observed that:

“It is a clear case of unnecessary harassment of the petitioner, as all proceedings against her were initiated only after she lodged a complaint against the Registrar. Significantly, the proceedings were founded upon a complaint allegedly made by a person who, in fact, had not filed it. This sequence of events unmistakably reflects the conduct of the Registrar, who continued in service with the University, whereas the petitioner has been removed from employment.”

Petitioner, Meena Singh, was hired in 2010 on a contractual basis as she had M.Phil, M.Ed. and M.A. Degrees along with four years of experience to be appointed as the Private Secretary to Vice Chancellor of Gautam Budh University. In 2018, her services were regularised as Staff Officer to Vice Chancellor. In 2020, her services were terminated based on a complaint by an advocate alleging irregularities in her initial appointment.

Against the termination, petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of with certain directions. Meanwhile, the Officiating Registrar filed criminal complaint against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC. In the disciplinary enquiry, petitioner was not given a chance to cross-examine the Officiating Registrar and was also not allowed to produce her own witnesses.

The Officiating Registrar, through an advocate, filed a writ petition challenging petitioner's appointment, which is still pending before the High Court. After the High Court order in the first writ petition, petitioner was issued a second show cause notice to which he filed a reply. However, she was again terminated from services in 2022.

In second round of litigation, the writ Court set aside the termination order and granted liberty to the petitioner to file fresh reply to second show cause notice. The Board of Management was directed to grant opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing. However, without considering her reply, her services were terminated again.

Thereafter, petitioner approached the High Court for a third time seeking quashing of the termination order. The writ Court again set aside the order and directed that the petitioner be given fresh opportunity of hearing and for filing a reply.

In her reply, petitioner specifically stated that her PhD degree had no role to play in her initial appointment and that no opportunity to cross examine the registrar had been given to her. She was again terminated in 2023, the order was again challenged and termination was partly set aside.

Again a show cause notice was issued to her to which she filed a reply and appeared twice in the meetings of the Board of Management. However, petitioner was asked by one Advocate, Mr. S.C. Tripathi, to appear. Upon asking, the University informed her about the terms of reference and formation of new committee. After conclusion of the enquiry proceedings, petitioner was again terminated from service. She again approached the High Court against the 4^th termination order.

The Court observed that the impugned order was passed on grounds that the petitioner had forged her PhD degree and wrongly prefixed 'Dr.' to her name. It observed that the petitioner had specifically asserted that she had not presented a PhD degree before the University during the appointment and someone had placed a fake degree in her records which were in the custody of the registrar of the University.

Noting that though the petitioner had wrongfully affixed 'Dr.' to her name, the Court observed that in the Inquiry Report, there was conclusive evidence that she was indeed pursuing PhD. In the Inquiry Report, it was also stated that the it was difficult to prove that the petitioner had attained regularisation by misrepresenting her degree.

Referring to the definition of misconduct as held by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Appellate Authority, Bank of India and another v. Mohd. Nizamuddin and Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector, the Court held that petitioner had merely stated that she was pursuing PhD and not claimed that she had completed it, despite this she was held guilty of misconduct.

“A mere assertion of pursuing higher studies does not amount to a false claim of possessing the said qualification. Unless there is a clear, deliberate, and conscious misrepresentation with intent to secure an undue advantage, the same cannot constitute misconduct.”

Observing that the entire process of suspending the petitioner and terminating her was set in motion after she had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the Registrar, the Court held that the University had initiated proceedings only to harass and target the petitioner showing premeditated and vindictive approach.

Holding that there was no guideline regarding preference to be given to higher degree holder, the Court held that the there was no occasion for the petitioner to rely upon a fake PhD degree to be selected for the post.

“This Court is constrained to observe that the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner on such untenable grounds reflects a clear abuse of process and smacks of mala fides. The manner in which the petitioner has been proceeded against, despite the absence of any legal or factual basis, indicates that the action was not guided by bona fide considerations but was motivated by extraneous reasons with the sole object of victimising the petitioner. Such conduct, in the considered opinion of this Court, amounts to an arbitrary exercise of power and cannot be countenanced in law.”

The Court held that merely affixing 'Dr.' to her name was not misconduct, especially when they were not a part of the inquiry. Accordingly, the Court quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement of the petitioner.

Case Title: Smt. Meena Singh v. State of U.P. And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 3471 of 2025]

Counsel for petitioner: Aishwarya Pratap Shahi, Nipun Singh

Counsel for respondent: Ashish Kumar Singh, Ashutosh Mishra, C.S.C.

Click Here To Read/Download Order