Hyderabad:Justice T. Madhavi Devi of the Telangana High Court quashed disciplinary actions initiated by Maulana Azad National Urdu University (MANUU) against a computer operator accused of sexual harassment, on the ground of procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice. The judge dealt with a writ plea filed by Mohammed Shamsuddin Adil, who was appointed in 2011 and terminated in 2013 following allegations of sexual harassment by a second-year diploma student. The termination was issued under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, without conducting an inquiry or issuing a chargesheet. The petitioner challenged this decision, contending that it violated his rights under the principles of natural justice. Following representations, the termination was withdrawn but the petitioner was placed under suspension pending further proceedings. Subsequently, the university’s internal complaints committee Padash found the petitioner guilty of misconduct. Based on its findings, the university imposed penalties, including withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect, treating the suspension period as “dies non” and placing the petitioner on fresh probation. The petitioner argued that these actions were procedurally flawed as no formal chargesheet was issued, and no proper inquiry was conducted under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The judge observed that while the Padash committee had conducted a preliminary investigation, the university failed to initiate a formal inquiry as required under the rules. The judge noted that the petitioner was not provided an opportunity to examine the evidence or cross-examine witnesses, rendering the process legally unsustainable. Referring to guidelines issued by the Government of India in 2015 for addressing sexual harassment cases, the judge emphasised the need for a two-stage process. While the PADASH committee’s investigation constituted the first stage, the absence of a formal inquiry at the second stage was a significant procedural lapse. The judge ruled that the penalties imposed on the petitioner could not be sustained without adherence to these mandatory procedures. The university defended its actions, stating that the penalties were based on the committee’s findings and subsequently ratified by the executive council. However, the judge ruled that procedural compliance was indispensable, even in cases of serious allegations like sexual harassment.
Death sentence of minor’s rapist commuted to life imprisonment
A two-judge panel of the Telangana High Court, comprising Justice K. Surender and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti, commuted the death sentence of a 62-year-old convict in a child rape and murder case handed down by a fast-track special court in a Pocso case. The panel reduced the punishment to life imprisonment, with a stipulation that the convict shall serve at least 30 years behind bars, including 15 years without parole. The panel ruled that while the crime was heinous and demanded severe punishment, it did not qualify as a “rarest of rare” case warranting the death penalty. The gruesome incident occurred on October 16, 2023, when the convict, Gafafar Ali, abducted the child from a construction site, lured her with a drink spiked with ethyl alcohol, and sexually assaulted her in a nearby cotton field. To silence her cries, he covered her mouth and nose, leading to her death. The victim’s body was recovered based on the convict’s confession. The fast-track special court for Pocso cases had sentenced the accused to death, categorising the crime as “rarest of rare.” The conviction was supported by strong evidence, including CCTV footage, eyewitness testimonies, forensic reports and confession of the accused. On appeal, the panel upheld the conviction but revised the sentence. The panel ruled that the case did not meet the stringent criteria for capital punishment and, accordingly, reduced the sentence.
Students alleges irregularities in allocation of engg. Seats
Justice T. Vinod Kumar of the Telangana High Court admitted a writ plea challenging the actions of the state and that of the Telangana State Council of Higher Education (TSCHE) over alleged irregularities in the allocation of engineering seats. The judge was hearing a writ plea filed by Makkena Sreenivasa Rao, seeking reallocation of seats on the ground of lack of transparency in the counselling rules and seat matrix. The petitioner alleged that the alleged irregularities violate constitutional rights guaranteed under Constitution. The petitioner, who secured a rank of 11,000 in the engineering counselling process, argued that the reservation policy lacked clarity, particularly regarding the percentage of seats reserved for various categories. Additionally, the plea raised concerns about the fairness of the open category system, asserting that it should purely be merit-based and accessible to all candidates, irrespective of caste or community. The petitioner, who had initially secured admission in Sreenidhi Institute during the first round of counselling, was eligible under both local and non-local open categories. During the hearing, the judge clarified that the open category seats are awarded solely based on merit and are available to candidates from all categories, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Backward Classes (BC). The judge also emphasised that higher-ranked candidates, irrespective of their reservation status, are given preference during the counselling process. The judge also reiterated that the open category does not provide any specific reservations, ensuring equal competition for all candidates.