IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No. 269 CWP-2455-2024 Decided on:-16.09.2025 Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav . . . Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Mr. Sukhbir Singh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Parveen Mehta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL)

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari setting aside the inquiry report dated 07.12.2022, Annexure P-11, whereby the allegations of sexual harassment against the petitioner have been proved which has been presented for necessary action to the competent authority.

2. As per the facts apparent on record, in brief, a complaint for sexual harassment was filed against the petitioner, dated 31.01.2020, Annexure P-1, by an Assistant Professor working in the College where he was the officiating Principal. On receiving the complaint, the petitioner, vide memo dated 01.02.2020, appointed Smt. Kiran Yadav as Chairperson of Anti Sexual Harassment Committee which had six other members. This committee was in existence prior thereto with College Principal as the Chairman. Since the allegations were levelled against the petitioner himself, who was officiating as Principal at the relevant time, he appointed Smt. Kiran Yadav in his place vide the aforementioned letter. Thereafter, inquiry into the complaint was conducted by the committee which submitted a report dated 16.03.2020, Annexure P-3, concluding that the allegations were baseless and stern action should be taken against the complainant for levelling unsubstantiated allegations.

2.1 Since the petitioner himself had constituted inquiry committee despite being an accused, the respondent-Department decided to constitute another inquiry committee in the Office of Director General, Higher Education and the allegations were again inquired into. As per its report dated 03.09.2020, Annexure P-5, the committee concluded that a recorded warning be issued to the petitioner for his misbehaviour with fellow female colleague and he be transferred out of the Government College to a far away place. Pursuant thereto, he was transferred vide office order dated 06.11.2020, Annexure P-6, and a warning for misbehaviour was also issued to him vide office order dated 26.12.2020, Annexure P-7.

2.2 Later, it came to the Department’s notice that the inquiry committee at the Directorate level was not as per the requirements of law, and the complainant also made a representation in that regard. Considering the same, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Higher Education Department, vide memo dated 10.05.2022, Annexure P-9, referred the complaint against the petitioner to Deputy Commissioner of the district with a request to conduct an inquiry as per the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short ‘the 2013 Act’) and submit report at the earliest. Vide another office order of the same date, the matter was re-considered and the order dated 26.12.2020, whereby the petitioner had been issued a recorded warning for misbehaviour, was withdrawn.

2.3 The local committee constituted in terms of Section 6 of the 2013 Act by the Deputy Commissioner inquired into the allegations afresh and submitted the impugned inquiry report, dated 07.12.2022, whereby allegations against the petitioner stood proved. It also remains a fact not denied that the petitioner on his own decided not to participate in the second and third inquiry conducted against him on advise tendered by his counsel. In these circumstances, the instant petition has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the third inquiry report is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the first inquiry report absolving the petitioner of any misconduct could have been challenged by filing an appeal within a period of three months which has not been done; the