A court should not finalize compensation or guilt of a party via writ jurisdiction if a substantive statutory appeal against the underlying inquiry report is pending before the competent appellate authority.

ORDER

Per: Justice Anand Pathak

The present writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been preferred by the appellant being crestfallen by the order dated 15.07.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.5625/2020, whereby writ petition filed by respondent No.1(petitioner) is allowed and on the basis of finding given by Internal Complaint Committee (hereinafter referred as "ICC") of Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education (LNIPE respondents No.4 and 5 herein), compensation is awarded by learned Writ Court.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No.1 was working as Yoga Instructor at the relevant point of time in the year 2019 in LNIPE where present appellant was working as Vice Chancellor. On the basis of an incident in March, 2019, complaint was lodged by respondent No.1 on 14.10.2019 under the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

3 . On the basis of complaint so received, ICC initiated inquiry proceedings. It is worthwhile to mention the fact that in pursuance to Act 2013, relevant service rules were also amended. In Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 amendment was incorporated treating ICC as the inquiring authority under relevant rules appointed by disciplinary authority for the purpose of said rules, meaning thereby ICC can act as inquiring authority on the allegation so levelled under the Act of 2013.

4. In pursuance thereof, ICC conducted inquiry and gave its finding vide inquiry report dated 21.09.2020. The said findings were having the trappings of alleged misconduct against present appellant. However, no penal action was suggested in the inquiry report. It appears that being aggrieved by said recommendation of ICC, appellant preferred the appeal purportedly under Section 18 of POSH Act and under Clause 8(5) of the University Grant Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Woman Employee and Student in Higher Educational Institution) Regulations, 2015. The said appeal as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant is still pending.

5 . Meanwhile, it appears that respondent No.1 filed writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.5625/2020 before learned Writ Court seeking multiple reliefs including grant of compensation from present appellant as well as State Government. Learned Writ Court allowed the writ petition and granted compensation to the tune of Rs.35 lacs to be given by appellant to respondent No.1 as compensation and Rs.5 lacs imposed over State Functionaries for not registering the criminal case at the instance of respondent No.1 within time and dragged the investigation and caused delay. Vide impugned order Rs.1 lac was imposed over LNIPE also for showing casual attitude towards the whole incident. Therefore, appellant is before this Court.

6 . It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was vice chancellor at the relevant point of time and because of administrative functions, he had to take some strict decision which resulted into findings as surfaced in report. Without adverting on merits of the case in detail, counsel for appellant referred the fact that appeal as referred above is still pending against the recommendation of ICC. During pendency of appeal, any observation either by learned Writ Court or by this Court causes prejudice and adversity to the cause of justice specially to appellant because if order of learned Writ Court is allowed to stand then it proceeds with assumption about the guilt of appellant. Appeal is still pending and same shall be heard and decided on merits.

7. This Court raised specific query from Deputy Solicitor General Shri Praveen Kumar Newaskar and he submitted that app