The judgment emphasizes the importance of interpreting the definition of 'workplace' inclusively and highlights the significance of procedural compliance in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was a Professor in a Department of the respondent no.1 [Sikkim University (University)]. Pursuant to a complaint of sexual harassment filed by respondent no.5 (a student of that Department), the respondent no.4 [the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)], conducted an inquiry and forwarded the inquiry report dated 08.06.2019 to the Executive Council of the University, i.e., respondent no.3 (Executive Council). The petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 10.06.2019, in which the inquiry report was also enclosed. On 21.06.2019, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice. On 28.06.2019, the Registrar of the University issued office order bearing no. 201/2019 dated 28.06.2019, in which the petitioner was informed that the Executive Council in its 33rd Meeting held on 28.06.2019 considered the inquiry report of the ICC and the representation made by the petitioner under clause 8(6) of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (UGC Regulations) and that the Executive Council had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not fit to be retained in the service of the University and had imposed the major penalty of termination of service with immediate effect. Thereafter, on 01.07.2019, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal. It is the petitioner‘s case that the impugned office order was received by him only on 03.07.2019. The writ petition seeks the quashing of the show cause notice dated 10.06.2019, the inquiry report dated 08.06.2019 and the order of termination dated 28.06.2019 and for various other consequential reliefs.

2. Heard Mr. Kalol Basu, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Karma Thinlay Namgyal, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents.

3. Mr. Kalol Basu submitted that the facts would reveal that the alleged act complained of by the respondent no.5 was an act purportedly committed at a wedding reception in a hotel beyond the definition of ?workplace under section 2(o) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (Act of 2013). Consequently, he submitted that the ICC did not have the jurisdiction to examine the complaint and give the impugned inquiry report. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Regional Director, E.S.I Corporation and Another vs. Francis De Costa and Another (1996) 6 SCC 1, Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti vs. Prabhakar Maruti Garvali and Another, (2007) 11 SCC 668 and Daya Kishan Joshi and Another vs. Dynemech Systems Private Limited. (2018) 11 SCC 642. It was his contention that sweeping definition cannot be given to the term ?workplace relying upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in Saurabh Kumar Mallick vs. Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Anr, 2008 SCC Online Del 563. He further submitted that Regulation 8(4) of the UGC Regulations provided that the Executive Authority of Higher Educational Institution (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. As admittedly, the petitioner had preferred an appeal on 01.07.2019, before the expiry of the thirty days as provided in Regulation 8(4) of the UGC Regulations, the termination order dated 28.06.2019 was illegal. Mr. Kalol Basu also submitted that since the Act of 2013 has penal consequences, it must be strictly construed and for construction of a penal statute, if two views are possible, then the one which supports the accused is to be adopted. For the said propositions, he relied upon Tolaram Relumal and Another vs. State of Bombay, (1955) 1 SCR 158/AIR 1954 SC 496. Mr. Kalol Basu further submitted that the proceeding before the ICC was not conducted in the manner