The judgment emphasizes the importance of conducting a regular inquiry before imposing major penalties and enabling the employee to establish innocence in cases of sexual harassment at workplaces.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition was originally filed with a petitioner put into challenge the communication dated 12.02.2018, directing the petitioner to appear before the Internal Complaints Committee of the Assam University based on a complaint lodged by a girl student as well as prayer for setting aside and quashing the order dated 06.04.2018 issued by the Registrar, Assam University imposing a penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 06.04.2018. The further prayer in the writ petition was for setting aside and quashing the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as “ICC”) of the Assam University as well as the resolution No. EC:117:03=18:06.2 of the 117th meeting (Special) of the Executive Council of the Assam University.

2. The petitioner was employed as a Peon in the year 1995 which post was subsequently re-designated as Multitasking Staff (MTC). While he was rendering service as a Multitasking Staff which was a blemish free service career, on 08.02.2018, he was served with a notice dated 08.02.2018 issued by the Registrar, Assam University and he was asked to go on 15 days leave with immediate effect. The said notice was issued on the basis of a complaint of sexual harassment made by or lodged by a lady student. Thereafter, by communication dated 12.02.2018, the Chairperson of the ICC directed the petitioner to appear before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the University in response to the complaint made by the girl student. On 12.02.2018 when the petitioner appeared before the ICC, he was informed that there is an allegation against him by the complainant that on 07.02.2018 evening after the University classes were over, the complainant had boarded a private bus in which the petitioner had also boarded and while both were travelling in the bus, the petitioner made physical contact with the lady. The ICC members did not show the complaint lodged by the girl student against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to explain as to what had happened in respect of the incident alleged. The petitioner stated that he was ignorant about any such incident taking place and he denied that he had done anything as alleged in the complaint. As far as he could recollect, a lady student of the university was also sitting next to him in the bus. It is stated that the petitioner was asked to write that he did not know anything about the incident and that he had not done anything. Upon being directed to put it in writing, the petitioner wrote that he had done nothing and since it was a moving bus and the petitioner and the said student were sitting in adjacent seats, while the bus took turnings, the petitioner’s shoulder might have touched the complainant's shoulder and if that happened, it was unintentional. It is stated that the petitioner was asked to put that in writing and one member of the ICC dictated the petitioner to write it that there was contact with the shoulder of the petitioner with the girl student and that was a mistake. Although a copy of the complaint was sought for, but the same was refused to be handed over to the petitioner by the ICC. Subsequently, by order dated 06.04.2008, issued by the Registrar, Assam University, the petitioner was imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement with effect from 06.04.2018 under Rule 11(vii) of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. The said order was stated to have been passed in terms of the resolution No. EC EC:117:03=18:06.2 of the 117th meeting (Special) of the Executive Council of the Assam University.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the resolution adopted by the ICC as well as by the EC and the impugned order imposing penalty on the basis of the findings of the ICC as approved by the EC, that is a matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to begin with no copy of the complaint was ever served on the petitioner. When he was asked to appear before the