On the Strike Action in Demand for End to Victimisation and Immediate Reinstatement of two Hindu College Teachers
Braving every possible form of threat and coercion directed against teachers by the DU Administration, the DUTA has been compelled to go on Strike on this day, 10 March 2015, mindful of the fact that Strike is a legitimate and democratic expression of protest when all appeals for justice made to the DU Administration have gone unheeded. The following reasons illustrate the DUTA’s position on the unjust termination of services of two teachers of Hindu College as well as the decision to go on Strike:
1. The Hindu College Governing Body’s intervention in the allegations of indiscipline made against two teachers, viz. Jai Inder Pal Singh (Physical Education) and Arvind Chaudhary (English) has been motivated and biased against them from the very start. The College GB did not allow the Staff Council’s Administrative Affairs and Grievance Committee (AAGC) to resolve the issue arising between teachers in any amicable manner whatsoever. Neutral eyewitness accounts of the altercation following a disrupted Staff association Meeting in August 2013 registered before the Grievance Committee of the Staff Council were deliberately ignored and set aside while one-sided and indirect accounts were given credence in a sanctioned Enquiry conducted in a summary and arbitrary manner.
2. During the entire course of the Enquiry, the two teachers were put on Suspension. The Suspension orders were passed without giving them any reasonable time to reply to ‘Show Cause’ or issuing to them a due statement of charges made against them.
3. Even after the Enquiry had been completed, the Governing Body refused to review the Suspension in violation of statutory procedure. The teachers remained suspended ad infinitum for 16 months without any notice or formal intimation issued on them on the state and need for prolonging their Suspension.
4. Ordinance XVIII and Clause 6 of Ordinance XII (Service Agreement) of the Delhi University Act (1922), its Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations were violated by Governing Body in its decision, taken on 11 April 2014, to terminate the services of the two teachers on the basis of the Enquiry Report. Clause 6 of Ordinance XII (pertaining to Service Agreement of College-appointed teachers) states: “The Governing Body shall not determine the engagement of the teacher whether summarily or otherwise without informing him in writing of the grounds on which they propose to take action and giving him a reasonable opportunity of stating his case in writing, and before coming to a final decision shall duly consider the teacher’s statement and if he so desires give him a personal hearing.” Significantly, the two teachers were denied access to essential documents such as the Report of the Enquiry Committee, the minutes of the Governing Body meeting of 11.4.2014, the letters from the college seeking approval for their suspension, and the letter from the Vice-Chancellor approving their suspension. When they sought copies of these documents from the college under the RTI, they received a written response saying these documents were “not available”. In violation of the two Ordinances, the two teachers were not given the opportunity to present their response to the Report of the Enquiry Committee before the decision to terminate their services was taken against them.
5. Five members of the Hindu College Governing Body (including both teachers’ representatives and University Nominees) voted against the Termination, in its meeting on 11.4.2014. When they were outvoted 6-5 by Trustee members in support of the Termination, they recorded their dissent.
6. The DUTA wrote to the Vice-Chancellor on 15 April 2014, duly notifying him on the lapses and violations of statutory procedure and the 5 dissents submitted in the GB meeting, while urging him to not approve the GB decision to terminate the services of these two teachers.
7. In a meeting of the Hindu College Governing Body held in 17 December 2015, the GB chairman reported to the members that he had received a letter from the University asking that the quantum of punishment, i.e. termination, be reconsidered as it was disproportionate, to which he had on his own replied reiterating the earlier decision. In doing so, the Chairman usurped the collective powers of the Governing Body and precluded any serious reconsideration of the 11.4.2014 decision.
8. The Vice-Chancellor approved of the Termination, citing the GB Chairman’s reply, on 21 February 2015. No new or additional facts pertaining to the case had been brought to notice which would, in any manner, occasion such a summary approval of termination.
9. The DUTA wrote an appeal to the Vice-Chancellor urging him to reconsider his approval of the termination and engage in dialogue with the DUTA, failing which the DUTA would be forced to go on Strike. No reply was issued from his office.
10. A complaint of victimisation was filed by one of the terminated teachers at the SC Commission. The matter was brought up for hearing at the SC Commission on 23.2.2015. The Registrar attended the hearing on behalf of the DU Vice-Chancellor. The Hindu college Governing Body Chairman also attended the hearing. Both were reprimanded for not carrying the documents required by SC Commission to establish whether the due process of law in taking action against the teacher had been followed or not. While the DU Registrar pleaded complete ignorance of the process that had culminated in the termination, the Hindu College GB Chairman was also unable to satisfy the SC Commission regarding the matter. The Commission expressed concern over the likelihood of “short-cutting of procedures” and asked the Registrar to submit to it a detailed Report by 3.3.2015, after examining all documents pertaining to the case, on the process of Law and principles of Natural Justice followed or otherwise, as recorded and reflected in the documents. In the Reply filed by the DU Registrar, it is curious that the University’s stated position on the termination makes the VC’s approval seem conditional to the Governing Body ensuring that all modalities “get addressed in terms of Clause 6 of Annexure to Ordinance XII.” This is a clear violation of the Ordinance XII as the Vice-Chancellor is supposed to satisfy himself regarding the adherence to all procedures and statutory provisions before signing his approval. The Registrar’s reply amounts to the statutory admission, before a judicial body, of the fact that the VC did not wait to ensure that all statutory provisions had been adhered to. Hence, his approval is illegal.
11. It is absolutely clear that the University officials, including the Vice-Chancellor, have colluded with the Trustee members of the Hindu College Governing Body with a view to teaching a cold-blooded lesson to Hindu College teachers and the DUTA who have been periodically raising the issue of administrative misdemeanour and violations of rules by the college authorities. The Private Trust of Hindu College has decided to run the college like a private institution and evade all public accountability in doing so. While teachers have been protesting against this, the Trustees took the opportunity of the fracas to divide them and crush the ongoing protests by taking singularly arbitrary action against the most vulnerable among them.
12. Further, the DU Vice-Chancellor has also unleashed hostility against the DUTA and tried to prevent it from going on Strike by falsely invoking the High Court’s interim order against Strike passed in the specific case pertaining to the agitations against forced introduction of the Semester System in DU. He has also invoked the draconian Code of Conduct (UGC’s Code of Professional Ethics made actionable against teachers by arbitrarily amending Ordinances XII and XVIII) even though the Code has no explicit provision against the teachers collectively seeking to express their grievances/demands through democratic action such as Strikes.
The DUTA remains undeterred by anti-democratic threats issued by the Vice-Chancellor and condemns his arrogant refusal to engage with the teachers’ collective on such a sensitive matter pertaining to the livelihood, justice and dignity of two bonafide teachers. The DUTA also questions his moral authority to take any disciplinary action against teachers, especially as he himself is under State scrutiny for academic, administrative and financial misdemeanour and ‘Show-Cause’ proceedings against him by the MHRD are already underway. The DUTA reiterates its demand for his removal and urgent Government intervention to ensure that justice is restored in the case of the two victimised teachers of Hindu College.
| NANDITA NARAIN President, DUTA |
HARISH KHANNA Secretary, DUTA |
https://duta.live
Leave a Reply