PULAK M. PANDEY vs INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI & ORS.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of order : 16th February, 2024

+ REVIEW PET. 57/2024 in W.P.(C) 741/2022 and CM APPL. No.9469/2024

PULAK M. PANDEY ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arun Khatri, Mr.Akshay, Mr. Sahil Khurana, Mr.Saumya Bajaj, Mr.Ishan Michu, Mr.Nishant Hooda, Mr.Shreya Lamba
versus
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI & ORS.
….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Arjun Mitra, Advocate for R-1 to 3

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
CM APPL. 9470/2024 (condonation of delay)
1. The instant application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) Allow the present application and kindly condone the delay of 26 days;
(b) Pass any such other order or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case”

2. For the sufficient cause being shown in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 26 days in filing the accompanying review petition is condoned.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
REVIEW PET. 57/2024
1. The instant review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
“a. Review and recall the judgment dated 15.12.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) 741/2022.
b. Pass any further order or direction as it may deem fit and proper.”

2. The petitioner had filed the captioned writ petition challenging the inquiry report dated 18th May, 2018; memorandum dated 27th September, 2019 and order dated 9th August, 2021 by virtue of which the penalty and administrative action against the petitioner was upheld wherein the petitioner was found guilty of sexual and mental harassment.
3. In the said writ petition, this Court had passed the judgment dated 15th December, 2023, thereby, dismissing the petition being devoid of any merits. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court under its review jurisdiction.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner was supplied a copy of the IIT Delhi Rules at the time of commencement of the inquiry against him, yet the Committee admittedly failed to adhere to the provisions of IIT Delhi Rules and Procedure for the Prevention, Prohibition and Punishment of Harassment of Woman at Workplace itself.
5. It is submitted that the copy of above said rules were supplied to the petitioner only because the inquiry was to be held as per the rules and procedure prescribed therein, and the Committee could not have transgressed from the prescribed procedure without any intimation to or acknowledgment of, the petitioner.
6. It is submitted that as per Clause 8 (i) of the IIT Delhi Rules, a complaint can be made within a period of three months from the date of last incident, and the present proceeding was instituted on the basis of complaints dated 12th January, 2018 and 25th January, 2018. However, in the present case the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn himself from the post of research supervisor with the respondent no. 4and was formally replaced on 28th April, 2016. The said events clearly suggest that the procedure laid down in the above said rules were not followed.
7. It is also submitted that the above said complaints fail to specify any timeline for allegations leveled against the petitioner and are based on vague and ambiguous chain of events concocted by respondent no. 4. The committee wrongly treated the said complaints as an ongoing chain of events and asked the petitioner to submit his representation regarding the same.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner was never intimated about the recording of statement of witnesses let alone given an opportunity to cross examine the prosecution witness.
9. It is also submitted that the same is not only violative of the rules prescribed in IIT Delhi Rules and Procedure for the Prevention, Prohibition and Punishment of Harassment of Woman at Workplace but also violates the principles of natural justice. The rights of the petitioner were violated by the Committee by not allowing him to cross examine the witnesses produced by the Complainant.
10. It is submitted that as per Clause 10 (1) (xix) of IIT Delhi Rules, proceedings of the Internal Complaint Committee shall be recorded in writing in English. The record of the proceedings and the statement of witnesses shall be endorsed by the persons concerned for authentication purposes. However, no such writing was kept by the Committee rather the proceedings were recorded using a mobile phone and hence, no such rules as submitted herein above were followed, thereby, raising the credibility of the statement of the witnesses.
11. It is submitted that as per the rules, the Disciplinary Authority can issue a chargesheet after perusing the contents submitted via the preliminary investigation report and only after duly perusing and deliberating over the same; a formal charge can be issued.
12. It is further submitted that in the present case, the Internal Complaint Committee treated its letter dated 27th February, 2018 as a show cause notice as well as a charge sheet and proceeded to conduct formal inquiry into allegations against the petitioner and unequivocally declared the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment while keeping the disciplinary authority in the dark by never asking for its approval.
13. Therefore, in view of the foregoing submissions, it is submitted that the instant petition may be allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed for.
14. Per Contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the instant review petition submitting to the effect that the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
15. It is submitted that the petitioner has been unable to put forth any contentions in order to bring out the grounds for review of the impugned judgment.
16. It is submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and thus, as per the settled law, there is no case made out for the review of the same.
17. In view of the foregoing submissions, the learned counsel submitted that the present review petition, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed.
18. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.
19. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it is observed that this Court, after taking into account the relevant laws and the entire facts of the case, had categorically held that the petitioner had applied for the documents related to the allegations leveled against him first time on 25th May, 2018 whereas the inquiry report was finalized on 18th May, 2018. Considering the same, this Court had reached to the conclusion that the petitioner cannot take benefit of his own omission to not reach the ICC well within time in order to peruse the documents.
20. It also observed that the petitioner was supplied with the copy of the IIT Delhi rules at the time of commencement of the inquiry and the petitioner was well aware that the copies of the documents such as the transcript of the witnesses cannot be supplied since the same contained identity of the witnesses. Further, the act of the petitioner in addressing various communication to the concerned authority palpably set out that the same was a part his dilatory tactics, and hence, the petitioner waived off his right to cross-examine the witness by not being vigilant towards the inquiry proceedings.
21. Furthermore, in paragraph no. 58 and 59 of the impugned judgment, observations were made with respect to the contention of the petitioner qua Clause 10 of the IIT Delhi Rules. After due perusal of the relevant annexures and the said clause, it was observed that the petitioner had admitted to the fact that he was allowed by the respondent institute to examine the written transcripts of recordings with the exclusion of witness’ identity and thereafter, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Hon’ble President of India in his capacity as a visitor of the respondent institute.
22. Taking into account the same, it was held that no error apparent in providing the opportunity to the petitioner to go through the record of the proceedings against him existed. Moreover, this Court deems it imperative to mention that in paragraphs no. 59 and 60 of the impugned judgment, it was held that the petitioner has not challenged the IIT Delhi rules and Procedures for the Prevention, Prohibition and Punishment of Harassment of Woman at Workplace. Therefore, the issues raised in the present petition seems to have been already dealt with and the same is evident upon reading of the above said paragraphs of the impugned judgment which have been reproduced for reference hereunder:
“59. As discussed above, it is not alien to law that there may be circumstances when the identity of witnesses may have to be kept confidential and it may not be expedient to confront the witnesses with the person against whom they may be testifying as in the instant case, rightly done by the respondent Institute to maintain the confidentiality of witness and the respondent gave a reasoned order to that affect.
60. The petitioner has not preferred any challenge to the IIT Delhi Rules and procedures for the Prevention, Prohibition and Punishment of Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace, 2014 and as such no case is made out to the said rules.”

23. Insofar as the law behind the principles of review is concerned, the same stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. Upon perusal of judgment namely Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 32, this Court is of the view that the power of review is exercised in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and only in such an event the order or judgment can be corrected or set aside.
24. A Court under review cannot act as an appellate Court for its own judgments, nor can it allow the petitions for review based only on the claim that one of the parties believes the judgment has wronged him. If matters that the Court has already decided on could be reopened and reheard, the same would be detrimental to the public interest.
25. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma (Supra) had carved out the essential grounds for review as per which a review petition will be maintainable if firstly there is discovery of new and important matter of evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him, secondly mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and third any other sufficient reason.
26. As far as the facts of the instant review petition is concerned, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for review as all the arguments and contentions advanced by him have been already taken into account while adjudicating the captioned writ petition and hence, the said contentions cannot be entertained under the review jurisdiction of this Court.
27. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner by way of the present review petition seems to repeat his old and overruled arguments which is not enough to re-open the case which had already been concluded. There is neither any discovery of new evidence nor there is any error apparent on the face of the record. The factual errors as contended on behalf of the petitioner are also absent and any arguments thereto are found to be baseless.
28. It is pertinent to mention here that the arguments advanced by the petitioner have been already noted and deliberated upon in the impugned judgment and in light of the limited power of this Court under its review jurisdiction; the same arguments cannot be allowed to be re-agitated.
29. In this regard, this Court finds that only errors that are apparent on the face of the record may be reviewed and errors required to be discovered through a process of reasoning cannot be entertained under the review jurisdiction.
30. The present review petition is an appeal in disguise, whereby, the petitioner is attempting to make out a case for rehearing of the issues raised by him in the captioned writ petition which already stands decided.
31. Since, no error apparent on the face of the impugned judgment has been made out by the petitioner, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed.
32. In view of the above discussions of facts and law, it is held that the impugned judgment dated 15th December, 2023 passed in W.P (C) No. 741/2022 merits no interference under the review jurisdiction of this Court.
33. Accordingly, the instant review petition along with the pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.
34. The Order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J
FEBRUARY 16, 2024
SV/RYP/DB
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

REVIEW PET. 57/2024 in W.P (C) no. 741/2022 Page 1 of 9