Court upholds DU prof’s termination

The Delhi High Court has upheld the termination of a senior faculty member at Delhi University’s Jesus and Mary College (JMC) for demanding bribe and other illegal gratification from students in exchange for attendance and marks.

In an order passed on September 12, Justice Jasmeet Singh observed that solicitation of such favours “is grave and strikes at the core of academic integrity.” The court dismissed a petition filed by Dr Thelma J Talloo, former Reader in the Commerce Department at the JMC, who had challenged an arbitral award of October 23, 2012, passed by the Appeals Committee of Delhi University affirming her dismissal for misconduct.

The court said: “In view of the matter, the proceedings were fair, the findings are supported by evidence and the penalty has already been tempered by leniency. Hence, under Section 34 of the Act, no ground for setting aside or further modification of the award is made out by the petitioner. For the said reasons, the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act challenging the award dated October 23, 2012 passed by the Appeals Committee constituted under Clause 9 of Annexure to Ordinance XII of the University of Delhi, is hereby dismissed.”

The case traces back to 2008 when students accused Dr Talloo of demanding money and goods, including a pearl string, in return for academic favours such as attendance and marks. Following the complaints, the college and the university constituted an inquiry committee, which upheld the charges of misconduct. An appeals committee later confirmed the findings but reduced the penalty from dismissal to termination, ensuring that her retirement dues were not affected.

Dr Talloo had claimed before the court that the complaints were fabricated, motivated by personal enmity and fuelled by administrative bias. She argued that the audio recording produced against her had been edited and that the inquiry process denied her fair defence and adequate legal representation.

After examining the record, Justice Singh found no infirmity in the arbitral award and declined to interfere. The petition was accordingly dismissed.