Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 626
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.
In The Matter Of:
Prof. Atul Kumar Mittal - Petitioner
Versus
Indian Institute Of Technology Delhi Through Its Registrar - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3969 of 2026 and CM APPL. 29605 of 2026
Decided On : 21-05-2026
For the Petitioner:Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Ms. Shradha Narayan and Mr. Akshay Sahay, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Arjun Mitra and Ms. Jayanti Jha, Advocates.
Disciplinary proceedings initiated by a statutory body require an independent application of mind regarding the specific allegations. Mechanical reliance on previous legal liberty to hold an inquiry, without adhering to mandatory procedural safeguards or providing reasoned justifications, renders the initiation order vulnerable to stay by the courts.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Disciplinary Inquiry - Requirement of application of mind - Initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee mandates independent application of mind by the disciplinary authority at every threshold, including the issuance of a chargesheet and the constitution of an inquiry authority. (Paras 10, 14, 25, 27)
(B) Administrative Law - Quasi-judicial decisions - Necessity of speaking orders - Administrative and quasi-judicial decisions of consequence must reflect a genuine application of mind to relevant considerations; mechanical resolutions lacking such reasoning are unsustainable in law. (Paras 27, 32)
(C) Service Law - Interim relief - Scope of - In cases involving repetitive procedural lapses and long-standing legal disputes, where a respondent institution ignores specific judicial mandates, a prima facie case for interim relief is warranted to prevent irreparable harm to the petitioner. (Paras 34, 35)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an academic, has faced multiple rounds of litigation concerning an inquiry into allegations of professional misconduct. Previous disciplinary actions were set aside by courts due to procedural irregularities, specifically for failing to follow established disciplinary rules and inquiry committee mandates. The respondent institution recently passed a resolution to conduct a fresh inquiry and imposed interim measures, including a bar from participating in certain professional fora. The petitioner challenged this resolution, citing a lack of application of mind and procedural non-compliance with the court's earlier directions regarding the conduct of the inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondent's resolution ordering a fresh inquiry was mechanical and lacked the requisite application of mind. It noted that the respondent adopted a selective and simplistic interpretation of the previous judicial liberty granted to conduct an inquiry, failing to address core procedural safeguards and the legal requirement for a reasoned decision. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner made out a prima facie case for interim relief.
Issues: Whether the resolution passed to initiate a fresh disciplinary inquiry and the subsequent imposition of interim measures were legally valid, and whether there existed sufficient grounds to grant a stay on the impugned proceedings pending final adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary authority must independently apply its mind to the necessity of initiating proceedings. Where an institution bypasses substantive procedural safeguards and issues unreasoned, mechanical orders despite previous judicial guidance on strict compliance, further proceedings must be stayed to protect the rights of the employee until the matter is decided on merits.
Result: The application for interim relief was allowed, and the operation of the resolution and all consequential proceedings were stayed pending the final hearing of the petition.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical documentation of litigation and procedural errors in sexual harassment disciplinary inquiries. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. disciplinary authority must independently approve administrative actions like chargesheets and inquiry appointments. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 3. impugned resolution legality and the validity of interim measures imposed following court-ordered liberty. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. requirement of non-delegable application of mind by the disciplinary authority for valid penal proceedings. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 5. institutional conduct regarding selective adherence to court mandates and abuse of liberty. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. criteria for granting interim relief based on prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
JUGMENT :
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.
CM APPL. 19432/2026 (filed by the petitioner for stay)
1. By way of the instant application, the Petitioner, a Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology (“IIT”), Delhi, essentially seeks stay of the operation and implementation of the Resolution No. BG/36/2025 dated 08.05.2025 (“impugned resolution”) passed by the Board of Governors (“BOG”) of IIT Delhi and all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court on third occasion in relation to the same set of allegations. Twice before, he has prevailed. The question, at the threshold of third round, is whether there exists adequate ground to stay the impugned proceedings until the main writ petition is decided.
3. On 22.01.2013, the then Director of IIT Delhi received a letter dated 22.01.2012 from Ms. X1, a Ph.D. scholar in the Department of Civil Engineering, seeking a change of her Ph.D. supervisor. The letter alleged, in substance, continuous provocative messages, insistence to meet at odd hours, and attempts to lure her into unfair academic practices. A week later, on 30.01.2013, the Institute received an email from Ms. X2, a former Ph.D. student who had completed her doctorate under the supervision of the Petitioner in 2008 and had thereafter maintained cordial correspondence with him from 06.10.2008 to 16.11.2011. The email alleged an incident of January 2004, nearly nine years prior to the date of the email.
4. A Fact-Finding Committee (“FFC”) was constituted and the report was placed before the Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee (“SHCC”). Thereafter, a chargesheet dated 26.04.2013 was issued by the Registrar by order and in the name of the Chairman, Board of Governors and not by the Board of Governors as a body, which is the Disciplinary Authority under the applicable rules.
5. A three-member Inquiry Authority was constituted on 12.08.2013. Instead, on 23.01.2014, the three-member Inquiry Authority was dissolved and a retired Judge of this Court, was appointed as a single-member Inquiry Officer, by the order of the Chairman alone, not of the Board. The single member Inquiry Officer submitted her report on 11.08.2014 holding the alleged charges to stand proven.
6. On 06.09.2014, IIT passed a resolution imposing the penalty of dismissal. This Court in W.P.(C) 6059/2014 vide order dated 30.10.2014, recorded that, and is reproduced as under:-
"..Prima facie, the contention of the respondents seems to be unsustainable as it is well settled that decisions taken at the meetings only evidenced by the minutes; minutes are only evidence the proceedings of the meetings and can neither add nor dilute the decisions taken at the meetings. Prima facie, it appears that a false statement was made before this Court"
7. The dismissal was eventually set aside vide order dated 30.04.2015 in CM Appl. No. 17178/2014, relevant para 8 is reproduced as under:-
"8. Having regard to the above, the captioned application is disposed of with the following directions, in line, with the instructions received by Mr. Banerjee :-
(i). The m
