Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Kali Charna Sabat (Dr.) v. U.O.I. Through National Institute of Technology & Others
Writ Petition No. 10021 of 2024 (Jabalpur); Decided on 8.11.2024
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- National Institutes of Technology Act, 2007 -- S. 29 -- maintainability of writ petition -- bar of alternative remedy -- S. 29 does not preclude petitioner from availing remedy available under Art. 226 -- it is choice of employee to refer dispute to Arbitration Tribunal -- petitioner-employee has not made any request to refer dispute to Arbitration Tribunal -- it would not come in his way to file petition under Art. 226 of Constitution. (2011) 4 SCC 584, (2017) 4 ADJ 715, (1997) 2 SCC 534, AIR 1953 SC 250 (FB), (1995) 6 SCC 749, Writ Petition No. 11403 of 2009 decided on 6.10.2010 and Writ Petition No. 5013 of 2017 decided on 6.9.2021 referred to. [Para 10]
(2) Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Central) -- R. 3C -- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 -- S. 9 -- misconduct defined under R. 3C committed -- complaint has to be made by aggrieved woman as per S. 9 of Act, 2013. [Para 14]
(3) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (Central) -- R.14 -- Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 -- R.3C -- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 -- Ss. 9 and 11 -- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 -- R. 7 -- service of petitioner terminated on charge of sexual harassment of female students -- complaint made by male students claiming to be class representatives -- S. 9 of Act of 2013 clearly provides that complaint should be made by aggrieved woman within period of three months from date of last instance but complaints were made beyond period of three months -- complaints do not fulfil requirement of R. 7 of Rules of 2013 -- notice issued to petitioner does not specify about supplying complaints/documents as mandated by R. 7 of Rules of 2013 -- opportunity of hearing not given to petitioner -- clear violation of R. 14 of Rules of 1965 -- enquiry report does not reveal whether any complainant appeared or was produced during course of enquiry and whether petitioner was granted any opportunity to cross -examine them -- only on basis of charges levelled and reply submitted by petitioner, Enquiry Committee prepared its report and supplied it to petitioner -- held -- respondents have not followed principles of natural justice -- manner of enquiry and procedure adopted by respondents are unacceptable and contrary to law -- finding given by Enquiry Committee only on basis of complaint and reply cannot be given seal of approval -- not only this, but written statements of witnesses produced by petitioner were also not taken note of -- Presenting Officer, without having any authority, asked questions to petitioner even without calling him as witness, which is contrary to provisions of R. 14(18) of Rules of 1965 -- enquiry concluded without opportunity of defence -- mandatory procedure not followed -- such enquiry is no enquiry in eyes of law -- any punishment based upon said finding cannot be allowed to stand. (2013) 1 SCC 297 followed. 2018 SCC Online Ker. 13878 relied on. Writ Petition No. 690 of 2019, Writ Appeal No. 1115 of 2022, Misc. Bench No. 18346 of 2021 (Lucknow), Writ Petition (C) No. 7915 of 2018 decided on 27.8.2018 and W. P. A. No. 11530 of 2022 referred to. [Paras 16, 17 & 20 to 22]
(4) Civil Services -- enquiry by Internal Complaints Committee under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 -- report of Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an enquiry report in disciplinary action under Civil Services Conduct Rules -- disciplinary authority shall treat report/findings of Complaints Committee as findings in disciplinary enquiry against delinquent employee and shall act on such report accordingly -- findings and report of Complaints Committee shall not be treated to be mere preliminary investigation or enquiry leading to disciplinary action but shall be treated as finding/report in enquiry into misconduct of delinquent. (2013) 1 SCC 297 followed. [Para 18]
(5) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 -- S. 9 -- enquiry by Internal Complaints Committee -- should be a full-fledged enquiry complying with principles of natural justice -- victim need not repeat statement -- could as well be asked to swear to statement already recorded -- delinquent should be permitted to cross-examine -- ICC should summon female employees/complainants to take their individual statement -- if on such statements, there is allegation of sexual harassment then appropriate notice shall be issued to delinquent and full-fledged enquiry shall be conducted. 2018 SCC Online Ker. 13878 relied on. [Para 19]
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & jk"Vªh; çkS|ksfxdh laLFkku vf/kfu;e] 2007 & /kkjk 29 & fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gksuk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dk otZu & /kkjk 29 ;kph dks vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu miyC/k mipkj dk ykHk ysus ls çokfjr ugha djrh & fookn ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k dks funsZf'kr djuk deZpkjh dh ilan gS & ;kph&deZpkjh us fookn ek/;LFke~ vf/kdj.k dks funsZf'kr djus dk vuqjks/k ugha fd;k & ;g lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226 ds v/khu ;kfpdk çLrqr djus esa mlds vkM+s ugha vk,xkA ¼2011½ 4 ,llhlh 584] ¼2017½ 4 ,Mhts 715] ¼1997½ 2 ,llhlh 534] ,vkbvkj 1953 ,llh 250 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] ¼1995½ 6 ,llhlh 749] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 11403 lu~ 2009 fu.khZr fnukad 6-10-2010 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 5013 lu~ 2017 fu.khZr fnukad 6-9-2021 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 10½
¼2½ flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1964 ¼dsUæh;½ & fuŒ 3x & efgykvksa dk dk;ZLFky ij ySafxd mRihM+u ¼fuokj.k] çfr"ks/k vkSj çfrrks"k½ vf/kfu;e] 2013 & /kkjk 9 & fuŒ 3x ds v/khu ifjHkkf"kr vopkj fd;k x;k & lu~ 2013 ds vfèkfu;e dh /kkjk 9 ds vuqlkj ifjokn O;fFkr efgyk }kjk fd;k tkuk gksrk gSA ¼iSjk 14½
¼3½ flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k vkSj vihy½ fu;e] 1965 & ¼dsUæh;½ & fuŒ 14 & dsUæh; flfoy lsok ¼vkpj.k½ fu;e] 1964 & fuŒ 3x & efgykvksa dk dk;ZLFky ij ySafxd mRihM+u ¼fuokj.k] çfr"ks/k vkSj çfrrks"k½ vfèkfu;e] 2013 & /kkjk 9 rFkk 11 & efgykvksa dk dk;ZLFky ij ySafxd mRihM+u ¼fuokj.k] çfr"ks/k vkSj çfrrks"k½ fu;e] 2013 & fuŒ 7 & efgyk fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds ySafxd mRihM+u ds vkjksi ij ;kph dh lsok lekIr & d{kk çfrfuf/k gksus dk nkok djus okys iq:"k fo|kfFkZ;ksa }kjk ifjokn fd;k x;k & lu~ 2013 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 9 esa Li"V micaf/kr fd ifjokn O;fFkr efgyk }kjk vafre ?kVuk ds fnukad ls rhu ekl dh vof/k ds Hkhrj fd;k tkuk pkfg, ijarq ifjokn rhu ekl dh vofèk ds ijs fd, x, & ifjokn lu~ 2013 ds fu;eksa ds fuŒ 7 dh vis{kk iwjh ugha djrs & ;kph dks tkjh lwpuki= esa lu~ 2013 ds fu;eksa ds fuŒ 7 }kjk vkKkfir fd, x, vuqlkj ifjokni=ksa@nLrkostksa ds çnk; ds ckjs esa fofunsZ'k ugha & ;kph dks lquokbZ dk volj ugha fn;k x;k & lu~ 1965 ds fu;eksa ds fuŒ 14 dk Li"V vfrØe.k & tkap çfrosnu ls çdV ugha fd tkap ds vuqØe esa dksbZ ifjokfnuh milatkr gqbZ ;k is'k dh xbZ rFkk ;kph dks mudh çfrijh{kk djus dk dksbZ volj fn;k x;k & ek= yxk, x, vkjksiksa vkSj ;kph }kjk fn, x, mÙkj ds vk/kkj ij tkap lfefr us viuk çfrosnu rS;kj fd;k vkSj ;kph dks çnk; fd;k & vfHkfuèkkZfjr & çR;FkhZx.k us uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vuqlj.k ugha fd;k & tkap dh jhfr rFkk çR;FkhZx.k }kjk vaxh—r çfØ;k vLohdj.kh; vkSj fof/k ds çfrdwy & tkap lfefr }kjk ek= ifjokn vkSj mÙkj ds vk/kkj ij fn, x, fu"d"kZ ij vuqeksnu dh eqgj ugha yxkbZ tk ldrh & ;gh ugha] cfYd ;kph }kjk is'k fd, x, lkf{k;ksa ds fyf[kr dFkuksa ij Hkh /;ku ugha fn;k x;k & çLrqfr vf/kdkjh us fdlh çkf/kdkj ds fcuk] ;kph dks lk{kh ds :i esa cqyk, fcuk gh mlls ç'u fd,] tks lu~ 1965 ds fu;eksa ds fuŒ 14¼18½ ds mica/kksa ds çfrdwy gS & çfrj{kk ds volj ds fcuk tkap lekIr dj nh xbZ & vkKkid çfØ;k vuqlfjr ugha & ,slh tkap fof/k dh n`f"V esa tkap ugha & mä fu"d"kZ ij vk/kkfjr fdlh Hkh naM dks fLFkj jgus ugha fn;k tk ldrkA ¼2013½ 1 ,llhlh 297 vuqlfjrA 2018 ,llhlh v‚uykbu dsjy 13878 voyafcrA fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 690 lu~ 2019] fjV vihy Øekad 1115 lu~ 2022] çdh.kZ U;k;ihB Øekad 18346 lu~ 2021 ¼y[kuŽ] fjV ;kfpdk ¼flfoy½ Øekad 7915 lu~ 2018 fu.khZr fnukad 27-8-2018 rFkk MCY;wŒihŒ,Œ Øekad 11530 lu~ 2022 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 16] 17 ,oa 20 ls 22½
¼4½ flfoy lsok & efgykvksa dk dk;ZLFky ij ySafxd mRihM+u ¼fuokj.k] çfr"ks/k vkSj çfrrks"k½ vf/kfu;e] 2013 ds v/khu vkarfjd ifjokn lfefr }kjk tkap & ifjokn lfefr dk çfrosnu flfoy lsok vkpj.k fu;e ds v/khu vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ esa fn;k x;k tkap çfrosnu ekuk tk,xk & vuq'kklfud çkf/kdkjh ifjokn lfefr ds çfrosnu@fu"d"kksZ dks vipkjh deZpkjh ds fo:) vuq'kklfud tkap esa fn, x, fu"d"kZ ekusxk vkSj ml çfrosnu ij rn~uqlkj dkjZokbZ djsxk & ifjokn lfefr ds fu"d"kksZ vkSj çfrosnu dks vuq'kklfud dkjZokbZ esa ifj.kr gksus okyk ek= çkjafHkd vUos"k.k ;k tkap ugha ekuk tk,xk vfirq vipkjh ds vopkj dh tkap esa fn;k x;k fu"d"kZ@çfrosnu ekuk tk,xkA ¼2013½ 1 ,llhlh 297 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 18½
¼5½ efgykvksa dk dk;ZLFky ij ySafxd mRihM+u ¼fuokj.k] çfr"ks/k vkSj çfrrks"k½ vf/kfu;e] 2013 & /kkjk 9 & vkarfjd ifjokn lfefr }kjk tkap & uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vuqikyu djrs gq, ifjiw.kZ tkap gksuk pkfg, & ihfM+r dks dFku nksgjkuk vko';d ugha & igys gh vfHkfyf[kr dFku dh lR;rk dh 'kiFk ysus dks Hkh dgk tk ldrk gS & vipkjh dks çfrijh{kk djus dh vuqefr nh tkuk pkfg, & vkarfjd ifjokn lfefr dks efgyk deZpkfj;ksa@ifjokfn;ksa ds O;fäxr dFku ysus ds fy, mUgsa leu djuk pkfg, & ;fn mu dFkuksa esa ySafxd mRihM+u dk vfHkdFku gS rks vipkjh dks leqfpr lwpuki= tkjh fd;k tk, vkSj ifjiw.kZ tkap dh tk,A 2018 ,llhlh v‚uykbu dsjy 13878 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 19½
ORDER
1. Looking to the issue involved in the case that the petitioner was dismissed from service by way of punishment passed in a departmental enquiry but that has been questioned by the petitioner that the enquiry has been conducted in complete violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure prescribed under the law and as such, an order has been passed by this Court on 21.5.2024 directing the respondents to file an affidavit/counter to the petition. Reply has been submitted. Since pleadings are complete and counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, therefore, it is finally heard.
2. This petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India asking the following reliefs:--“(i.) That, this Hon’ ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned arbitrary and utterly perverse termination order dt. 29.2.2024 (P/2) & all three inquiry reports of ICC dt. 3.11.2022 (P/11), 14.9.2023 (P/51) & 25.1.2024 (P/58) with charge sheet dt.20.1.2023 (P/11) passed by the registrar.
(ii) That, this Hon’ ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned suspension order dt.30.12.2022 (P/12) & extensions of suspension orders dt. 29.3.2023 (P/13), 25.9.2023 (P/14) & 26.12.2023 (P/15) as they were illegally issued. passed by the registrar.
(iii) That, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the all-consequential benefits.
(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.”
3. Considering the relief claimed and the averments made in the petition, it is clear that by order dated 29.2.2024 (Annexure P/2), services of the petitioner, who was working in the Institution of respondent No.2 have been terminated with effect from 23.2.2024 from the post of Assistant Professor Grade-II. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner inter-alia on grounds that proper procedure for conducting enquiry, especially proper opportunity of hearing has not been given to him and principles of natural justice have not been followed.
4. To resolve the controversy involved in the case and to answer the rival contentions made by counsel for the parties, it is apt to bring certain facts on record in a nutshell, which are as under :--
4.1. That the petitioner was working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Materials and Metallurgical Engineering of Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology Bhopal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’). As per the petitioner, one Dr. C. Sasikumar (respondent no.3), the senior most faculty in the Institution had some personal issues with him and was after him ever since he joined in the Department of respondent No.3 in the Institution. The petitioner did not have any laboratory for carrying out experiments for undergraduate students and lab space for carrying out his research because the respondent No.3 who was the oldest faculty of the department, forcefully occupied most of the lab spaces and major instruments of the department, as if it was his personal property.
4.2 The petitioner after joining, tried his best to take up some major projects and also tried to build some major collaborations. The petitioner knowing that he did not have any lab space requested the respondent No.3 to let him utilize his occupied instruments and lab facilities. However, respondent No.3 instead of cooperating, suggested the petitioner to write some project proposals in which the respondent No.3 will be the principal investigator. As per the petitioner, he would have readily agreed to his proposal, but he could not accept it because their research areas are different. Finally, petitioner could not get any lab space in his Department.
4.3 Even without lab space, due to petitioner’s immense efforts, he could get a DST project worth around 46 lakhs, the presentation of which was to be held in April 2024. He submitted a collaborative project (worth 4 crores) of Minist
The court emphasized that procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice must be strictly adhered to in disciplinary inquiries against probationers, including the right to be heard and to cr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure for conducting an inquiry into a complaint of sexual harassment must be fair, impartial, and aligned with the principles of natu....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-observance of the principle of natural justice, procedural irregularities, and findings based on irrelevant material can vitiate departmen....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, conducting fair and independent enquiries, and upholding principles of natural justice in cases of sexual harassment at the....
Removal of service - Sexual harassment at work place - Regular enquiry conducted by the ICC - No disciplinary enquiry is necessary and based upon ICC enquiry officer’s report, the respondents have ri....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
