In The High Court At Calcutta

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

WPA 30615 of 2017 Dr. Manik Pradhan

vs.

Union of India & Ors.

Mr. Anindya Lahiri,

Mr. Mainak Ganguli, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul

Mr. Subhomoy Paul

Mr. Anish Chakraborty

… for the petitioner.

Mr. Parth Ghosh

Mr. Madhu Jana … for the respondents/U.O.I.

Heard on & Judgment on: 26th August, 2025

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:-

1. The petitioner claiming to be an erudite person, impeccably educated

was functioning as an associate professor at SN Bose National Centre for Basic Science. The respondent No.5 being a student in the same institution was pursuing her PHD course under the guidance of the petitioner who had been a faculty member at the aforesaid institution assisting the student to continue her research work for completion of PHD course. The respondent No.5 filed a complaint before the members of the Complaint Committee SN Bose National

Centre for Basic Science on 16.05.2016 inter alia alleging to have been subjected to mental pressure due to the immoral acts on the part of the petitioner which according to the complainant had been emotionally manipulative. The complainant felt threatened on refusal of the same to condescend and propitiate the amoral advances of the petitioner, he might jeopardize her career. Being agonized and traumatized she sought for a new supervisor to replace the petitioner to complete her research work in experimental Bio Physics to obtain PHD decree. On receipt of such complaint a six member Complaint Committee was instituted which held its first meeting on 28th May, 2016 which resolved that the petitioner be supplied with a copy of the complaint filed by the respondent No.4 to obtain his respective observation with regard to the allegations narrated in the aforesaid complaint. It was further resolved that the complainant be placed under the guidance of another supervisor as per the Rules of the aforesaid Centre with the approval of the Director during the course of the functioning of the Committee. The petitioner subsequently filed the written statement. The petitioner as well as the complainant was heard by the aforesaid Committee. The aforesaid Committee vide its meeting held on 5th July, 2016 inter alia resolved “that enquiry proceedings will be initiated by the Committee under Section 11(1) of the “Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace ( Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 which states that the Complaints Committee will proceed to make inquiry into the Complaint in accordance with the inquiry as the provisions of the Service rules applicable to the respondent. Reference is drawn to relevant paras of the Bye-Laws of the Centre in the matter. A communication to this effect will be served on both the complaint and the respondent”.

2. It further detailed the names of the 13 witnesses as enumerated in serial number as mentioned in Paragraph 6 of the said resolution dated 5th July, 2016. The witnesses were to be called on 13th July and 14th July, 2016 in case list of witnesses could not be called and the evidence be recorded within 14th July, 2016 further date will be granted later for completion of the same. Subsequently, certain witnesses appeared before the Committee and their statements were recorded with their consent. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry report was submitted which was challenged by the petitioner in WP No. 1054 (W) 2017 which was disposed of by an order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 3rd November, 2017 inter alia stating “ while appreciating the skepticism to be well founded the same may also be the difficulty with the complainant. I allow the writ petition on admission by giving liberty the respondent No.1 Centre to direct the Internal Complainants Committee to conduct a fresh enquiry into the complaint made against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law and keeping the timeframe as mentioned therein. In case the petitioner requires the presence of