Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J
Rasal Singh – Appellant
Versus
University Of Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(C) 14760/2025 | CM APPL. 60742/2025 | CM APPL. 6409/2026 | CM APPL. 80060/2025
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Suspension and Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Inquiry mechanism - Creation of ad hoc fact-finding committees - Impermissibility - Statutorily mandated committees are the exclusive bodies designated for inquiring into claims of workplace harassment - Parallel or pre-statutory fact-finding committees violate the procedural scheme. (Paras 32-34, 39)
(C) Administrative orders - Stigmatic impact - Neutrality in suspension - Suspension orders must not contain subjective characterizations of alleged misconduct - Premature affirmation of gravity of allegations infringes upon the presumption of innocence. (Paras 52-54)
Facts of the case:
An inquiry was initiated against the head of an educational institution following allegations of misconduct. An ad hoc committee was constituted by the administrative authority to examine complaints prior to any referral to the statutorily mandated internal complaint committee. Based on this committee's findings, a suspension order was issued containing descriptive phrases regarding the seriousness of the allegations.
Findings of Court:
The court held that while the employer possesses inherent power to suspend an employee pending inquiry under relevant service rules, the constitution of a parallel ad hoc fact-finding body outside the prescribed statutory framework is impermissible. The court also observed that the suspension order was stigmatic as it went beyond administrative requirements and formed a negative opinion on the merit of the allegations.
Issues: Whether an institution has the power to suspend an employee in the context of an ongoing inquiry into workplace harassment; whether the constitution of a pre-statutory fact-finding committee is legally valid; and whether the specific suspension order was stigmatic.
Ratio Decidendi: Though the power of suspension is an inherent right of an employer, it must be exercised strictly within the bounds of service rules without creating redundant or extra-statutory investigative bodies. Furthermore, suspension orders must remain neutral in language; characterizing allegations as definitive misconduct constitutes a stigma that prejudices the right to a fair inquiry.
Result: The petition was allowed, the suspension order was set aside, and liberty was granted to the employer to issue a fresh, legally compliant order.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Geeta Luthra, Shalini Singh, Prashansika Thakur, Lakshay Saini
For the Respondents: Mohinder JS Rupal, Hardik Rupal, Aishwarya Malhotra, Tripta Sharma, Jayant Mehta, Jyoti Taneja, Shivam Malhotra, Pallav Arora
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. context and procedural history of the suspension challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. framing of the legal issues and conflicting party contentions. (Para 6 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 3. employers retain inherent power to suspend employees pending inquiry. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. prohibition of parallel ad-hoc fact-finding bodies under posh act. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 5. suspension orders containing stigmatic editorial judgments are invalid. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 6. final summary of conclusions and administrative order of disposal. (Para 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
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
