IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Executive Authority must issue a show-cause notice before taking any action against an employee under the service rules.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been filed by the National Forensic Science University and its Vice-Chancellor with a prayer that the order dated 20.02.2024 and the CAV judgment dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 17470 of 2023 be quashed and set aside.

2. The respondent no. 1 filed the captioned petition before the learned Single Judge praying that the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the Vice-Chancellor in an appeal filed under Regulation 8(5) of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (for short ‘Regulations, 2015’) be quashed and set aside.

2.1 The original petitioner was appointed with the University as an Associate Professor (Nanotechnology) in the Institute of Research and Development under the erstwhile Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory. On the enactment of the National Forensic Science University Act, the appointment of the respondent – original petitioner was deemed to be one under the National Forensic Science University Act (for short ‘NFSU Act’). A complaint was received from the original respondent no.3 in the appeal alleging sexual harassment based on which the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the University took cognizance on 09.12.2022. The ICC thereafter issued notice to the respondent-original petitioner. The ICC conducted an inquiry and upon conclusion of the inquiry proceedings submitted its report on 12.04.2023 holding the respondent no. 1 guilty of committing acts of sexual harassment under Regulation 8(3) of the Regulation, 2015.

2.2 The report was forwarded to the respondent no. 1.

The respondent no. 1 within 30 days of the forwarding of the report, filed an appeal under Regulation 8(5) of the Regulation, 2015 on 10.05.2023. Based on the submissions made by respondent no. 1, the Executive Authority passed an order holding that the respondent no.1 was not fit to occupy any teaching position and therefore his services were terminated with immediate effect by the order under challenge before the learned Single Judge.

2.3 The learned Single Judge, by the judgment under challenge, set aside the order as being unsustainable in law, reserving the liberty on the Executive Authority to take an appropriate decision upon the report of the ICC, after considering the appeal in accordance with the Regulations, 2015.

3. Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Advocate appears with Mr. Udit Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant. Taking us through the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20.02.2024 and the CAV judgment dated 22.03.2024, Mr. Dave would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error in interpreting Regulations 8 & 10 of the Regulations, 2015 inasmuch as learned Single Judge opined that the order of punishment was bad as, no show-cause notice to the offender was issued. He would take us through the Regulations especially Regulations 8(4), 8(5) and 8(6) to submit that if the regulations are read, clause 4 of Regulation 8 indicated that the Executive Authority shall act on the recommendations of the Committee within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the inquiry report unless an appeal against the findings is filed within that time by the either party. He would submit that an appeal had to be filed against the findings or recommendations as set out in clause 5 of Regulation 8. Reading Regulation 8(6), he would submit that clause 6 had to be read in conjunction with clause 4 of Regulation 8 inasmuch as in absence of an appeal being filed as required under clause 4, the Executive Authority would act on the recommendations and if it decided to do so, then a show-cause notice had to be served on the party. In other words, he would submit that it was only in cases where no appeal was filed would the necessity of issuing a show-cause notice would arise. He