An internal inquiry committee must strictly comply with the composition and procedural mandates prescribed by statutory regulations; failing to do so, or addressing events occurring outside the professional relationship (workplace), renders the findings based thereon legally unsustainable.

O R D E R

The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-15 whereby the Registrar of respondent No.1-University i.e. Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak (‘IGNTU’ for short) has communicated the decision of the Executive Council imposing a penalty of dismissal from service as a result of the findings of the Enquiry Officer as accepted by the Executive Council after discarding the objections of the petitioner on the enquiry report.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondent No.1-University in terminating the services of the petitioner is totally unsustainable in law. It is contended that initially a female student of the University made a complaint to the Respondent No.3, who is Chairman of Internal Complaint Committee (‘ICC’ for short) of the respondent No.1- University under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘POSH Act’ for short) that the petitioner has sexually exploited the said female student while working as Professor and Head of Department of History in the University. It is contended that the said complaint which was handwritten in Hindi was addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and submitted to the Respondent No.3 being Head of ICC. It was alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner had committed rape on the said female student in the year 2019 and then he has been repeatedly sexually exploiting the said female student and she has got pregnant many times. Even on the date of complaint she stated herself to be pregnant and demanded justice for such act of the petitioner and to recognize the unborn child of the complainant. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant is being sexually exploited since the year 2019 onwards.

On the basis of the said complaint the ICC took up the matter and ultimately the ICC submitted a report dated 04.03.2022 wherein the ICC held the complaint to be substantiated.

On the basis of recommendations of ICC a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner containing as many as 6 charges and an Enquiry Officer was appointed who held the charges to be proved.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the ICC was not properly constituted and that the constitution of ICC was contrary to the regulations of the University Grants Commission (‘UGC’ for short) framed in this regard. It was vehemently argued that the ICC recommendations were highly biased and skewed and many of the members of ICC, as constituted by the University, did not participate in ICC and therefore, the ICC itself was rendered invalid without replacement of necessary members.

It is further contended that the enquiry officer has believed the recommendations of ICC and on the basis of recommendations of ICC, has held that the charges of sexual exploitation are proved against the petitioner. By taking this Court through the enquiry report, it has been argued that before the enquiry officer in the departmental enquiry, only the complainant of sexual exploitation appeared before the enquiry officer as witness apart from the respondent No. 3 who was Chairman of ICC. Apart from these two witnesses, no other witness was produced before the enquiry officer by the University and there was no valid evidence before the enquiry officer to uphold guilt of the petitioner.

It is further contended that none of the charges against the petitioner are made out and the allegation of sexual exploitation do not even attract the provisions of POSH Act at all because the complainant did not fall within the definition of a “aggrieved woman” in terms of Section 2(a) of POSH Act because at the time when the alleged sexual exploitation took place, she was not the student of the University and even if the residential house of the petitioner is treated to be extension of the workplace, even then at the time when the alleged sexual exploitation took place, she was not the student of the U