Employers maintain inherent authority to suspend employees pending inquiry under service rules. However, parallel fact-finding bodies outside of established statutory frameworks are impermissible, and suspension orders must remain neutral to avoid stigmatizing the employee before a formal finding of guilt.

JUDGEMENT

INDEX

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY......................................................................3

II. FACTUAL MATRIX...............................................................................5

III. SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES..............................................................6

IV. POWERS TO SUSPEND FOR A CASE PERTAINING TO THE POSH ACT.....................................................................................................9

V. THE POWER OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR (COLLEGES), DU TO CONSTITUTE AN AD HOC FACT FINDING COMMITTEE PURSUANT TO A COMPLAINT RECEIVED UNDER THE POSH ACT.............................................................................................................. 16

VI. WHETHER THE SAID SUSPENSION ORDER IS STIGMATIC 25

VII. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................. 28

VIII. ORDER .............................................................................................. 28

1. In a nutshell, the controversy relates to the manner in which the petitioner has been placed under suspension as well as the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2-Ramanujan College, University of Delhi (hereinafter “College”) to pass an order of suspension de hors the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter “PoSH Act”).

2. The petitioner, a principal of the College has filed the instant petition challenging the constitution of an ad hoc committee by the Deputy Registar (Colleges) of respondent no. 1-University of Delhi (hereinafter “DU”), as well as its report dated 23.06.2025 (hereinafter “Report”); furthermore, a suspension order dated 18.09.2025 (hereinafter “said Suspension Order”) passed by the College, on the basis of the aforenoted Report, has also been assailed.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3. This Court vide order dated 26.09.2025 granted an interim stay on the operation of the said Suspension Order, and left it for the concerned Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter “ICC”) to consider as to whether any interim measure/s against the petitioner are warranted, including suspension and/or imposition of any other restrictions. The inquiry against the petitioner was also directed to be expedited.

4. Aggreived by the interim order dated 26.09.2025, a Letters Patent Appeals¹LPA Nos. 622-624/2025. were preferred by the respondents. The Division Bench heard the parties in detail and had posted the case for pronouncement of judgement on 15.10.2025. However, prior to the pronouncement of judgement, learned senior counsel for the petitioner herein, on instructions, stated that the petitioner would continue to be on leave from the College till the disposal of the instant writ petition. Bearing in mind the object of the PoSH Act and the submissions made by the petitioner and his counsel, the Division Bench disposed of the appeals, while observing the following:

“4. The issues involved in this case are regarding the power of a University/College to suspend a Principal in a case under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘POSH Act’) and the power of the University/Colleg