The High Court of Karnataka on Monday stayed the October 17, 2018 order of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc.) on compulsorily retiring Giridhar Madras, a 51-year-old scientist and senior professor who was decorated with national awards, on the char ge of sexual harassment.
Justice R. Devdas passed the interim order on a petition filed by Mr. Giridhar, a recipient of the prestigious Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Award and the nationally competitive J.C. Bose National Fellowship for scientists.
The petitioner has also sought a direction for initiation of action against IISc.’s director for disclosure of his name and details of inquiry to the media allegedly in violation of prohibition under Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
“It appears that the director has a personal vendetta against the petitioner as is clear from his mala fide and illegal actions,” it has been alleged in the petition.
While denying allegations levelled against him, the petitioner claimed that he was compulsorily retired from service without giving him a show-cause notice based on an inquiry report, which was based on “perceptions” and not evidences against him.
It has been pointed out in the petition that the woman had given a complaint of sexual harassment on December 15, 2016 and he gave a detailed reply on December 19, 2018 to the allegations, though he was neither given a copy of the complaint nor the name of the complainant, as sought by the institute. Following this, the matter was closed on the basis of the complainant’s letter.
However, in March 2017, the complainant sought to work under the supervision of another professor by claiming that the petitioner was ignoring her, though the petitioner was unaware of the identity of the complainant, and besides asked for a formal inquiry without making any allegation of sexual harassment.
Irregularities
Pointing out that the copy of the complaint, dated December 15, 2016 was given to him for the first time in May 2017, after a delay of 140 days against seven days mandated in law, the petitioner contended that the internal complaints committee (ICC) had committed several procedural irregularities in its constitution as well as conducting of inquiry.
