UT police reluctant to file case against PU VC

CHANDIGARH: For the Chandigarh Police, one month and five days is not enough to take a decision whether to lodge an FIR against Panjab University (PU) Vice-Chancellor on the sexual harassment complaint filed by Professor Rajesh Gill at their public window.

Aarti Kapur

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, July 3

For the Chandigarh Police, one month and five days is not enough to take a decision whether to lodge an FIR against Panjab University (PU) Vice-Chancellor on the sexual harassment complaint filed by Professor Rajesh Gill at their public window.

On May 28, Gill submitted a complaint at the public window of UT IG R P Upadhay and UT SSP Sukhchain Singh Gill, and the police have sought departmental legal opinion and are also waiting for the Panjab University committee against sexual harassment (PUCASH) report copy to take action.

In November 2013, an amendment had been made under Section 345 (A) that after receiving any sexual harassment complaint, the police could investigate and take action. On condition of anonymity, former attorney generals also said that no report of sexual harassment committee of the institute was required to take police action. The New Delhi National Commission for Women (NCW), legal cell, Law Officer Sudha Choudhary said that the justification of the Chandigarh Police to lodge an FIR on the basis of the report of the sexual harassment committee of PU was invalid. Sukhchain Singh said that he had not yet received the copy of PUCASH report. He said the complaint which Gill submitted at the public window was sent for legal opinion to know under which guidelines the FIR could be lodged.

Contrary to which Panjab University registrar Retd Col G S Chadha confirmed that the PUCASH report had been sent to the office of the PU Chancellor a week ago and as desired by the police a copy was sent to them also.

Panjab University professor Rajesh Gill said that neither the university authorities nor the UT police was responding to the complaints which were filed more than a month ago. She said that the NCW had asked the UT police on May 8 to take action on her complaint and submit a report within 15 days, but no action had been taken so far. In the UGC meeting held last week, on the issue, she demanded that the VC be sent on leave for a fair inquiry.

PUCASH committee chairperson Nishtha Jaiswal said the police did not require the committee’s report to act on the complaint.

Sequence of events

On April 20: Professor Rajesh Gill files a complaint with the NCW.

On May 8: The NCW asks the UT IG police to respond on it and submit its report within 15 days.

On May 28: Gill files the complaint at the public window of UT IG, UT SSP and also at the Sector 11 police station.

On May 29 and June 3: Gill meets UT SSP.

On June 5: Gill sends the copy of the police complaint to the NCW.

On June 11: Gill meets UT IG but he was not even aware of the complaint.

The case

On April 15, Professor Gill had visited the VC office at 3:30 pm to congratulate him on his extension. After waiting for 20 minutes, Professor Grover came out of his office. Reacting to which he winked and said, “The best will only happen if you stop fanning the problems in the Syndicate and the Senate.”