$~J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on : 27.03.2025 + LPA 190/2019 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI & ANR.

....Appellants Through: Mr Gourab Banerji, Senior Advocate with Mr Arjun Mitra, Ms Raka Chatterjee, Mr Rakesh Talukdar, Mr Supreeth V. and Mr Mohit Pandey, Advocates.

versus ATUL KUMAR MITTAL ....Respondent Through: Respondent in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal assails a judgment dated 20.02.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 9777/2017 whereby the inquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment against the respondent, as well as the consequent penalty of compulsory retirement has been set aside, and the appellant/s has been directed to re-instate the respondent.

2. The inquiry against the respondent (professor at IIT, Delhi) was conducted on account of certain complaints of sexual harassment received by the institute. The factual background leading up to the filing of the W.P.(C) 9777/2017, and the impugned order dated 20.02.2019 is set out hereunder:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT LPA 190/2019 Page 1 of 50 FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. On 22.01.2013 a complaint was received by the Director, IIT Delhi from a Ph.D scholar. By the said communication, the concerned Ph.D scholar expressed certain apprehensions and sought change of guide for the purpose of pursuing her Ph.D. Consequently, a fact finding committee was formed to look into the complaint dated 22.01.2013. The Fact Finding Committee submitted its report on 13.02.2013 based on interaction with the complainant/Ph.D Scholar. The same was placed for consideration before the Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee (hereinafter “SHCC”) on

26.02.2013.

4. During the said meeting, the SHCC took note of the fact that while the Fact Finding Committee’s inquiry with regard to the complaint dated 22.01.2013 was going on, another complaint had been received on 30.01.2013 by another student adverting to some instance/s during the year 2004. It was decided by the SHCC to initiate an inquiry into the matter. Pursuant thereto, a notice dated 18.03.2013 was served upon the respondent; on 22.03.2013, the respondent sought time to file a detailed reply. Subsequently, a detailed reply was submitted wherein the respondent sought to controvert the allegations made against him and elaborate factual submissions were made by the said respondent. It was also sought by the respondent as under:

“In view of the above, I therefore request you to kindly provide me the reasonable time alongwith the copies of all the documents relating to the proceedings of the fact finding committee, and the basis on which the inferences have been drawn by the committee.”

5. The matter came to be considered again in the meeting of the SHCC on 25.03.2013. The minutes of the said meeting record as under:-

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT LPA 190/2019 Page 2 of 50 “The Committee has already perused the complaints as well as documents in support thereof at the time of directing Prof. A.K. Mittal to submit his response. After perusing the response and the brief points of defense raised by him the Committee after detailed deliberations was of the view that at this stage no final merits of the case have to be given. The requirement was to decided whether or not a regular inquiry has to be instituted. Since this Committee is of the considered view that the allegations and harassment are prima facie made out, a regular inquiry should be instituted against Prof. A.K. Mittal and a charge sheet served upon him in next 15 days after getting the same approved by disciplinary authority.

Amongst various objections raised by Prof. A.K. Mittal that laid down procedures have not been followed by preliminary Fact Finding Committee, the Committee feels that since Prof. A.K. Mittal is going to get an ample opportunity for defense, this objection does not sustain. However, there are no hard and fast rules for laid down proc