High Court

1. The appellant was initially engaged as a lecturer on contractual basis in the respondent-University in the year 2010. He continued as such on contractual basis and his engagement was renewed lastly on 22.7.2021 on the post of Assistant Professor. His engagement has been discontinued by the Executive Council of the respondent-University in its meeting held on 28.10.2024. The resolution of the Executive Council has been communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar. Aggrieved by this order the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.20135 of 2024. This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge considering the seriousness of charge levelled against the appellant and with the finding that the principles of natural justice are substantially followed and no interference is called for.

2. It transpires that while working as Assistant Professor in the respondent-University certain complaints were made of sexual harassment by the students against the appellant. Cognizance of the complaint was taken and the matter was referred to Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). There are three reports of the ICC on record. All the reports are of the same day, i.e. 24.10.2024. The first report is at page 174 of the special appeal which is submitted by two members. The second report of the same day is submitted by nine members. The third report is by the single member of the Women's Cell. These three reports have been placed before the Executive Council on the strength of which the impugned decision has been taken.

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel for the appellant argues that the procedure for conduct of inquiry in respect of complaints of sexual harassment has to be in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations of 2015'). The constitution of the committee is specified in regulation 4 which reads as under:- "4. Grievance redressal mechanism.---(1) Every Executive Authority shall constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) with an inbuilt mechanism for gender sensitization against sexual harassment. The ICC shall have the following composition:- (a) A Presiding Officer who shall be a woman faculty member employed at a senior level (not below a Professor in case of a university, and not below an Associate Professor or Reader in case of a college) at the educational institution, nominated by the Executive Authority, Provided that in case a senior level woman employee is not available, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from other offices or administrative units of the workplace referred to in sub-section 2(o). Provided further that in case the other offices or administrative units of the workplace do not have a senior level woman employee, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from any other workplace of the same employer or other department or organization; (b) two faculty members and two non-teaching employees, preferably committed to the cause of women or who have had experience in social work or have legal knowledge, nominated by the Executive Authority, (c) Three students, if the matter involves students, who shall be enrolled at the undergraduate, master's, and research scholar levels respectively, elected through transparent democratic procedure; (d) one member from amongst non-government organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment, nominated by the Executive Authority. (2) At least one-half of the total members of the ICC shall be women. (3) Persons in senior administrative positions in the HEI, such as Vice- Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, Registrar, Deans, Heads of Departments, etc., shall not be members of ICCs in order to ensure autonomy of their functioning. (4) The term of office of the members of the ICC shall be for a period of three years. HEIs may also employ a system whereby one-third of the members of the ICC may change every year. (5) The Member appointed form amongst the non-governmental organizations or associations shall be paid such fees or allowances for holding the proceedings of the Internal Committee, by the Executive Authority as may be prescribed. (6) Where the Presiding Officer or any member of the Internal Committee: (a) contravenes the provisions of section 16 of the Act; or (b) has been convicted for an offence or an inquiry into an offence under any law for the time being in force is pending against him; or (c) he has been found guilty in any disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him; or (d) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest, such Presiding Officer or Member, as the case may be, shall be removed from the Committee and the vacancy so created or any casual vacancy shall be filled by fresh nomination in accordance with the provisions of this section."

4. The process of conducting an inquiry is stipulated in regulation 8 which reads as under:- "8. Process of conducting Inquiry- (1) The ICC shall, upon receipt of the complaint, send one copy of the complaint to the respondent within a period of seven days of such receipt. (2) Upon receipt of the copy of the complaint, the respondent shall file his or her reply to the complaint along with the list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses within a period of ten days. (3) The inquiry has to be completed within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the complaint. The inquiry report, with recommendations, if any, has to be submitted within ten days from the completion of the inquiry to the Executive Authority of the HEL Copy of the findings or recommendations shall also be served on both parties to the complaint. (4) The Executive Authority of the HEI shall act on the recommendations of the committee within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the inquiry report, unless an appeal against the findings is filed within that time by either party. (5) An appeal against the findings or /recommendations of the ICC may be filed by either party before the Executive Authority of the HEl within a period of thirty days from the date of the recommendations. (6) If the Executive Authority of the HEl decides not to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then it shall record written reasons for the same to be conveyed to ICC and both the parties to the proceedings. If on the other hand it is decided to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then a show cause notice, answerable within ten days, shall be served on the party against whom action is decided to be taken. The Executive Authority of the HEI shall proceed only after considering the reply or hearing the aggrieved person. (7) The aggrieved party may seek conciliation in order to settle the matter. No monetary settlement should be made as a basis of conciliation. The HEI shall facilitate a conciliation process through ICC, as the case may be, once it is sought. The resolution of the conflict to the full satisfaction of the aggrieved party wherever possible, is preferred to purely punitive intervention. (8) The identities of the aggrieved party or victim or the witness or the offender shall not be made public or kept in the public domain especially during the process of the inquiry."

5. With reference to regulation 4 it is argued that the composition of the ICC is statutorily prescribed which has not been followed, inasmuch as three students, who were required to be associated in the inquiry through transparent democratic procedure were not associated. Attention of the Court has also been invited to regulation 4(3) as per which the head of the department is not to be a member of the ICC. With reference to regulation 4(1)(d) it is stated that no member from non-governmental organization has been associated. In addition to the allegation with regard to non- constitution of ICC as per the regulations, it is further argued that the procedure of conduct of inquiry has also not been followed. It is alleged that copy of the findings or recommendations made by the ICC was also not served upon the appellant.

6. Sri Khare also points out that the remedy of filing appeal in terms of regulation 8(5) before the Executive Council has also not been afforded to the appellant. It is further submitted that the manner in which the decision is taken by the Executive Council clearly is in derogation of the statutory rules applicable in the matter and, therefore, the decision of the Executive Council cannot be sustained.

7. On the above submissions made on behalf of the appellant, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, appearing for the University does not dispute the fact that the copy of the findings or recommendations of the ICC was not given to the appellant. It is also not disputed that the opportunity of filing appeal against such recommendation has also been made illusory for such reason.

8. We otherwise find substance in the contention of the appellant that the decision of the University is not based on objective consideration of the materials on record, inasmuch as the only finding returned by the Executive Council is that the appellant is not exonerated by the three reports submitted by the ICC.

9. Sri Khare submits that there is no observation and finding in the decision of the Executive Council that the allegations of sexual harassment attributed to the appellant are proved in the inquiry.

10. Having gone through the materials placed on record, we find that the grievance with regard to constitution of the committee for holding of such inquiry has not been adverted to by the learned Single Judge. Merely by observing that the charges are serious it cannot be concluded that the allegations made against the appellant are proved. We also do not understand as to how three different reports can be submitted on the same day by the ICC. In what manner the three reports have been reconciled or what exactly prevailed with the Executive Council to hold the appellant guilty also is left to speculation.

11. Though we understand that status of the appellant is that of a contractual teacher but it remains undisputed that he has been working for the last nearly fifteen years. The order impugned is otherwise found stigmatic in nature and, therefore, it was excepted that adequate opportunity of hearing and defending the appellant would be given by the University. The statutory regulations of 2015 are otherwise attracted in the facts of the case and, therefore, the provisions contained therein had to be followed before any adverse report could have been relied upon against the appellant. Since such is not the case here, as such the decision of the University in discontinuing the contractual engagement of the appellant cannot be sustained. Undisputedly, copy of the inquiry report is also not given to the appellant nor he had any opportunity to challenge the adverse report of the committee.

12. For the reasons and discussions held above, this special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 5.2.2025 is set aside. The order of the University discontinuing the engagement of the appellant on the charge of sexual harassment dated 28.10.2024 is also set aside. Liberty stands reserved to the University to proceed afresh in accordance with the Regulations of 2015 and conclude such fresh inquiry, in accordance with law, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of two months.

13. Considering the nature of engagement offered to the appellant we provide that the University shall reconsider the question of appellant's reinstatement on the strength of the fresh decision to be taken in the matter, within a further period of two weeks. The appellant also undertakes to cooperate in the inquiry. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 RA

1. The appellant was initially engaged as a lecturer on contractual basis in the respondent-University in the year 2010. He continued as such on contractual basis and his engagement was renewed lastly on 22.7.2021 on the post of Assistant Professor. His engagement has been discontinued by the Executive Council of the respondent-University in its meeting held on 28.10.2024. The resolution of the Executive Council has been communicated to the petitioner by the Registrar. Aggrieved by this order the appellant approached this Court by filing Writ-A No.20135 of 2024. This writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge considering the seriousness of charge levelled against the appellant and with the finding that the principles of natural justice are substantially followed and no interference is called for.

2. It transpires that while working as Assistant Professor in the respondent-University certain complaints were made of sexual harassment by the students against the appellant. Cognizance of the complaint was taken and the matter was referred to Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). There are three reports of the ICC on record. All the reports are of the same day, i.e. 24.10.2024. The first report is at page 174 of the special appeal which is submitted by two members. The second report of the same day is submitted by nine members. The third report is by the single member of the Women's Cell. These three reports have been placed before the Executive Council on the strength of which the impugned decision has been taken.

3. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel for the appellant argues that the procedure for conduct of inquiry in respect of complaints of sexual harassment has to be in accordance with the University Grants Commission (Prevention, prohibition and redressal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Regulations of 2015'). The constitution of the committee is specified in regulation 4 which reads as under:- "4. Grievance redressal mechanism.---(1) Every Executive Authority shall constitute an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) with an inbuilt mechanism for gender sensitization against sexual harassment. The ICC shall have the following composition:- (a) A Presiding Officer who shall be a woman faculty member employed at a senior level (not below a Professor in case of a university, and not below an Associate Professor or Reader in case of a college) at the educational institution, nominated by the Executive Authority, Provided that in case a senior level woman employee is not available, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from other offices or administrative units of the workplace referred to in sub-section 2(o). Provided further that in case the other offices or administrative units of the workplace do not have a senior level woman employee, the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from any other workplace of the same employer or other department or organization; (b) two faculty members and two non-teaching employees, preferably committed to the cause of women or who have had experience in social work or have legal knowledge, nominated by the Executive Authority, (c) Three students, if the matter involves students, who shall be enrolled at the undergraduate, master's, and research scholar levels respectively, elected through transparent democratic procedure; (d) one member from amongst non-government organizations or associations committed to the cause of women or a person familiar with the issues relating to sexual harassment, nominated by the Executive Authority. (2) At least one-half of the total members of the ICC shall be women. (3) Persons in senior administrative positions in the HEI, such as Vice- Chancellor, Pro Vice-Chancellors, Rectors, Registrar, Deans, Heads of Departments, etc., shall not be members of ICCs in order to ensure autonomy of their functioning. (4) The term of office of the members of the ICC shall be for a period of three years. HEIs may also employ a system whereby one-third of the members of the ICC may change every year. (5) The Member appointed form amongst the non-governmental organizations or associations shall be paid such fees or allowances for holding the proceedings of the Internal Committee, by the Executive Authority as may be prescribed. (6) Where the Presiding Officer or any member of the Internal Committee: (a) contravenes the provisions of section 16 of the Act; or (b) has been convicted for an offence or an inquiry into an offence under any law for the time being in force is pending against him; or (c) he has been found guilty in any disciplinary proceedings or a disciplinary proceeding is pending against him; or (d) has so abused his position as to render his continuance in office prejudicial to the public interest, such Presiding Officer or Member, as the case may be, shall be removed from the Committee and the vacancy so created or any casual vacancy shall be filled by fresh nomination in accordance with the provisions of this section."

4. The process of conducting an inquiry is stipulated in regulation 8 which reads as under:- "8. Process of conducting Inquiry- (1) The ICC shall, upon receipt of the complaint, send one copy of the complaint to the respondent within a period of seven days of such receipt. (2) Upon receipt of the copy of the complaint, the respondent shall file his or her reply to the complaint along with the list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses within a period of ten days. (3) The inquiry has to be completed within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the complaint. The inquiry report, with recommendations, if any, has to be submitted within ten days from the completion of the inquiry to the Executive Authority of the HEL Copy of the findings or recommendations shall also be served on both parties to the complaint. (4) The Executive Authority of the HEI shall act on the recommendations of the committee within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the inquiry report, unless an appeal against the findings is filed within that time by either party. (5) An appeal against the findings or /recommendations of the ICC may be filed by either party before the Executive Authority of the HEl within a period of thirty days from the date of the recommendations. (6) If the Executive Authority of the HEl decides not to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then it shall record written reasons for the same to be conveyed to ICC and both the parties to the proceedings. If on the other hand it is decided to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then a show cause notice, answerable within ten days, shall be served on the party against whom action is decided to be taken. The Executive Authority of the HEI shall proceed only after considering the reply or hearing the aggrieved person. (7) The aggrieved party may seek conciliation in order to settle the matter. No monetary settlement should be made as a basis of conciliation. The HEI shall facilitate a conciliation process through ICC, as the case may be, once it is sought. The resolution of the conflict to the full satisfaction of the aggrieved party wherever possible, is preferred to purely punitive intervention. (8) The identities of the aggrieved party or victim or the witness or the offender shall not be made public or kept in the public domain especially during the process of the inquiry."

5. With reference to regulation 4 it is argued that the composition of the ICC is statutorily prescribed which has not been followed, inasmuch as three students, who were required to be associated in the inquiry through transparent democratic procedure were not associated. Attention of the Court has also been invited to regulation 4(3) as per which the head of the department is not to be a member of the ICC. With reference to regulation 4(1)(d) it is stated that no member from non-governmental organization has been associated. In addition to the allegation with regard to non- constitution of ICC as per the regulations, it is further argued that the procedure of conduct of inquiry has also not been followed. It is alleged that copy of the findings or recommendations made by the ICC was also not served upon the appellant.

6. Sri Khare also points out that the remedy of filing appeal in terms of regulation 8(5) before the Executive Council has also not been afforded to the appellant. It is further submitted that the manner in which the decision is taken by the Executive Council clearly is in derogation of the statutory rules applicable in the matter and, therefore, the decision of the Executive Council cannot be sustained.

7. On the above submissions made on behalf of the appellant, Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, appearing for the University does not dispute the fact that the copy of the findings or recommendations of the ICC was not given to the appellant. It is also not disputed that the opportunity of filing appeal against such recommendation has also been made illusory for such reason.

8. We otherwise find substance in the contention of the appellant that the decision of the University is not based on objective consideration of the materials on record, inasmuch as the only finding returned by the Executive Council is that the appellant is not exonerated by the three reports submitted by the ICC.

9. Sri Khare submits that there is no observation and finding in the decision of the Executive Council that the allegations of sexual harassment attributed to the appellant are proved in the inquiry.

10. Having gone through the materials placed on record, we find that the grievance with regard to constitution of the committee for holding of such inquiry has not been adverted to by the learned Single Judge. Merely by observing that the charges are serious it cannot be concluded that the allegations made against the appellant are proved. We also do not understand as to how three different reports can be submitted on the same day by the ICC. In what manner the three reports have been reconciled or what exactly prevailed with the Executive Council to hold the appellant guilty also is left to speculation.

11. Though we understand that status of the appellant is that of a contractual teacher but it remains undisputed that he has been working for the last nearly fifteen years. The order impugned is otherwise found stigmatic in nature and, therefore, it was excepted that adequate opportunity of hearing and defending the appellant would be given by the University. The statutory regulations of 2015 are otherwise attracted in the facts of the case and, therefore, the provisions contained therein had to be followed before any adverse report could have been relied upon against the appellant. Since such is not the case here, as such the decision of the University in discontinuing the contractual engagement of the appellant cannot be sustained. Undisputedly, copy of the inquiry report is also not given to the appellant nor he had any opportunity to challenge the adverse report of the committee.

12. For the reasons and discussions held above, this special appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 5.2.2025 is set aside. The order of the University discontinuing the engagement of the appellant on the charge of sexual harassment dated 28.10.2024 is also set aside. Liberty stands reserved to the University to proceed afresh in accordance with the Regulations of 2015 and conclude such fresh inquiry, in accordance with law, at the earliest, preferably, within a period of two months.

13. Considering the nature of engagement offered to the appellant we provide that the University shall reconsider the question of appellant's reinstatement on the strength of the fresh decision to be taken in the matter, within a further period of two weeks. The appellant also undertakes to cooperate in the inquiry. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 RA