infowebsite.in
Former BR Ambedkar College principal and the senior assistant had moved the High Court against the trial court order, which had summoned them in connection with the death of the woman employee of the college who succumbed to burn injuries after set herself ablaze in front of the Delhi Secretariat in 2013.
The two petitioners moved the Delhi High Court challenging the trial court’s 2014 order summoning them in connection with the death of the former woman employee of the college who succumbed to burn injuries after setting herself ablaze in front of the Delhi Secretariat in 2013.
(Photo credit: PTI)
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court said that a person holding a certain post cannot be held liable for abetment for certain harsh decisions causing hardship to an employee in the absence of criminal intent.
Justice Amit Sharma observed this while quashing an order by a trial court summoning the former principal of BR Ambedkar College of Delhi University (petitioner no 1) and a senior assistant working there in the principal’s office (petitioner no 2) in a 2013 case of abetment to suicide of a woman staffer of the college.
Harsh decisions cannot be termed as an action which would amount to abetment in absence of requisite mens rea: High Court
“This court is of the considered opinion that person holding a certain post, whether in private sector or public sector, in the course of duties have to take certain decisions which at time can be harsh causing hardship to an employee. The same cannot, in the absence of the requisite mens rea, be termed as an action which would amount to incitement/abetment in terms of section 306 of the IPC. There cannot be an absolute rule and each case will depend on its facts and circumstance,” the High Court said while setting aside the summoning order dated September 17, 2014 passed by the trial court.
Petitioners moved High Court against summoning order by trial court
The two petitioners moved the High Court challenging the trial court’s 2014 order summoning them in connection with the death of the former woman employee of the college who succumbed to burn injuries after setting herself ablaze in front of the Delhi Secretariat in 2013.
Former BR Ambedkar College principal and the senior assistant had moved the High Court against the trial court order, which had summoned them in connection with the death of the woman employee of the college who succumbed to burn injuries after set herself ablaze in front of the Delhi Secretariat in 2013.
What did suicide note, dying declarations say?
During investigation, a suicide note addressed to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of Delhi Pradesh Congress, was recovered, wherein the act of self-immolation was attributed to the mental and physical harassment meted out by petitioners and various aides of the former principal. She also blamed the Delhi Chief Minister as well as Vice Chancellor of Delhi University in her suicide note. Dying declarations by the deceased made to the to the sub-divisional magistrate and Investigating Officer (IO) of the case attributed mental and sexual harassment by petitioners to be the cause of her suicide.
Deceased was terminated from service in March 2012
The deceased was terminated from service on March 13, 2012 by the petitioner no. 1 exercising his powers after an enquiry authority found her guilty of six charges, including non-observance of duty timings and official decorum, wilful absenteeism, tampering and falsification of the official record, giving false statements, passing derogatory remarks towards colleagues and seniors, making false complaints against senior employees to agencies outside of the college in violation of university rules etc. The deceased had made several complaints to the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) and Apex Sexual Harassment Committee of the Delhi University after her termination from service.
Nothing on record to demonstrate that petitioners were in contact with deceased post her termination and immediately before attempted suicide: High Court
The High Court, while quashing the trial court order, noted that the service of the deceased was terminated on March 13, 2012 and the date of the attempted suicide was on September 30, 2013 but there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioners were in contact, in any manner, with the deceased post her termination and immediately before the attempted suicide.
“In fact no overt or covert act(s) has been attributed to the petitioners which was proximate to the time of the attempt to suicide by the deceased,” the High Court said.
All complaints filed by deceased were closed after due enquiry and said complaints were dealt by different statutory bodies: HC
The High Court further noted that all the complaints filed by the deceased were closed after due enquiry and the said complaints were dealt by different statutory bodies which were not under the immediate control of the petitioner no 1.
“The grievance of the deceased in the suicide note was in fact just not against the present petitioners but also against other persons mentioned therein. The said note even blamed the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Delhi as well as Vice Chancellor of Delhi University. The incident of attempted suicide has already been enquired into by the Enquiry Committee constituted by National Commission for Women and Shri B.L. Garg Commission apart from the present chargesheet in which the petitioners stand exonerated,” the High Court said while setting aside the summoning order by the trial court.
Next Article
Follow us on social media
