Back
2024 6 Supreme(Telangana) 731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
Meghdeep Saha – Appellant
Versus
The English and Foreign Languages University and Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 29304 of 2024
Decided On : 04-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Sai Teja Kambalapally, Advocate
For the Respondents:P.S. Rajasekhar, Advocate
The cancellation of admission without following due process and principles of natural justice renders the inquiry invalid.
Headnote:(A) University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 - Regulation No. 8 - Cancellation of admission - Petitioner’s admission was cancelled based on complaints of sexual harassment without following due process - The University failed to provide copies of complaints and an opportunity to respond, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 3, 4, 8, 11)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - The right to be heard is fundamental; failure to provide an opportunity to respond to allegations renders the inquiry report invalid. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s admission was cancelled following complaints of sexual harassment from students, but he was not given copies of the complaints or an opportunity to respond.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order and inquiry report were set aside due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, allowing the University to initiate fresh action.
Issues: Whether the University followed the proper procedure in cancelling the petitioner’s admission and conducting the inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the procedural safeguards outlined in Regulation No. 8, asserting that the failure to provide the petitioner with the complaints and an opportunity to respond constituted a violation of natural justice.
Result: Writ Petition disposed of, setting aside the impugned order and inquiry report.
ORDER :
Kunuru Lakshman, J.
1. Heard Sri Sai Teja K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 20.09.2024 issued by the Registrar of respondent No. 1-University, whereby, he has cancelled the admission of the petitioner.
3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 20.09.2024 would reveal that the University has received complaints against the petitioner alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner. They have received complaints from both male and female students. The said complaints were placed before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) for relevant action. The Presiding Officer, ICC i.e., respondent No. 3 after conducting inquiry submitted report holding that the petitioner is guilty of the allegations leveled against him and the said allegations were proved. The petitioner simply denied all incidents described in the complaints. Therefore, on consideration of the said report, vide order dated 20.09.2024, the Registrar of the respondent-University cancelled the admission of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner has not received copies of the said complaints and was not even afforded an opportunity. The respondent-University did not follow the procedure laid down under the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter, 'Regulations, 2015'), more particularly, Regulation No. 8.
5. In the light of the same, this Court directed Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents to get specific instructions and also to produce copy of the Inquiry Report. He has produced copy of the Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2024 along with the copies of complaints.
6. Perusal of the said complaints would reveal that the respondent-University has received about 20 complaints from both male and female students alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner. The said complaints were considered and respondent No. 3 has submitted Inquiry Report dated 19.09.2024.
7. Regulation No. 8 of the Regulations, 2015 deals with the process of conducting inquiry. The same is relevant and is extracted below:
"8. Process of conducting Inquiry-(1) The ICC shall, upon receipt of the complaint, send one copy of the complaint to the respondent within a period of seven days of such receipt.
(2) Upon receipt of the copy of the complaint, the respondent shall file his or her reply to the complaint along with the list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses within a period of ten days.
(3) The inquiry has to be completed within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the complaint. The inquiry report, with recommendations, if any, has to be submitted within ten days from the completion of the inquiry to the Executive Authority of the HEI. Copy of the findings or recommendations shall also be served on both parties to the complaint.
(4) The Executive Authority of the 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.
(5) An appeal against the findings or/recommendations of the ICC may be filed by either party before the Executive Authority of the HEI within a period of thirty days from the date of the recommendations.
(6) If the Executive Authority of the HEI decides not to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then it shall record written reasons for the same to be conveyed to ICC and both the parties to the proceedings. If on the other hand it is decided to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then a show-cause notice, answerable within ten days, shall be served on the party against whom action is decided to be taken. The Executive Authority of the HEI shall
