Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 67919

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J
Meghdeep Saha – Appellant
Versus
The English and Foreign Languages University – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.7693 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.V. Sai Teja Kambalapally
For the Respondents: P. B. Vijay Kumar, A.V.S Laxmi

In disciplinary inquiries concerning sexual harassment allegations within educational institutions, procedural fairness, including disclosure of evidence and the right to cross-examine witnesses in a controlled manner, is mandatory. Denying these rights violates natural justice and renders the disciplinary findings and consequential expulsion orders unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Educational Institutions - Disciplinary proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Audi alteram partem - Scope and applicability of inquiry process - Cancellation of admission without providing copies of complaints, statements, or underlying documents and denying the right to cross-examination vitiates the proceedings. (Paras 4, 8, 9)

(B) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 11 - UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 - Internal Complaints Committee - Inquiry procedure - While formal rules of evidence are not applicable, committees must maintain standards of procedural fairness - Cross-examination of witnesses must be facilitated in a manner that protects the dignity of the complainant while ensuring the delinquent party has an opportunity to defend their case. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
An inquiry by an institutional committee into allegations of sexual harassment resulted in the cancellation of a student's admission. The student challenged the order, arguing that the proceedings were conducted without prior disclosure of complaints, denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and a lack of procedural transparency, violating directives issued by the court in previous instances.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the inquiry conducted failed to adhere to the requirements of the governing regulations and the principles of natural justice. The omission to share relevant documents and the denial of a fair opportunity to challenge evidence rendered the findings procedurally unsound. Furthermore, the appellate authority's decision lacked the necessary application of mind and reasoned justification.

Issues: Whether the inquiry conducted by the institutional committee complied with the principles of natural justice and the specific procedural requirements governing allegations of sexual harassment in educational institutions, and whether the appellate authority's decision was valid in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Disciplinary proceedings in educational institutions, though administrative, must adhere to minimum standards of fairness. Failure to provide the accused with evidence relied upon and preventing the right to challenge witness statements through regulated, indirect cross-examination violates fundamental tenets of procedural due process and natural justice, necessitating a de novo inquiry.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; matter remanded for fresh inquiry with specific directions for procedural compliance.

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural history of the ph.d. student's expulsion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. parties' conflicting contentions regarding procedural fairness and natural justice. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. requirement of fair inquiry procedures under ugc regulations and judicial precedents. (Para 8)
4. quashing of orders for procedural irregularity and remand for fresh inquiry. (Para 9)
5. formal disposal of the writ petition with specific directions. (Para 10)

ORDER:

Head Mr. M.V. Sai Teja Kambalapally, learned counsel for the petitioner and Dr. P. B. Vijay Kumar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mrs. A.V.S Laxmi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned orders dated 19.02.2025 passed by respondentNo.4 (Appellate Authority), dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the orders dated 19.11.2024 of the respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner’s admission to Ph.D., Programme in the Department of English Language Education, Regional Campus, EFL University, Lucknow, was cancelled, and his name struck off from the Rolls of the Institution, including denial of re-admission, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P. No. 29304 of 2024 and W.P. No. 35854 of 2024.

3. Facts of the case:

i) The petitioner was provisionally admitted to the Ph.D. Programme in English Language Education for the academic year 2024–25 at the Regional Campus of The English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU), Lucknow, vide Provisional Admission Letter No. EFLU-RC-LKO/Acad./F-1016/2024/235 dated August 2024. He was also allotted hostel accommodation by the Campus authorities.

ii) EFLU is a Central University established under the English and Foreign Languages University Act, 2006, having its main campus at Hyderabad and regional campuses at Lucknow and Shillong. Respondent No.3, the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), is the statutory body constituted under the UGC (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (hereinafter UGC, Regulation 2015).

iii) In early September 2024, the Warden of the Lucknow Campus received multiple complaints from students, both male and female, alleging acts of sexual harassment, intimidation, and inappropriate conduct by the petitioner. These complaints were forwarded to the University’s Head Office, Hyderabad, and placed before the ICC for inquiry in accordance with the UGC Regulations, 2015.

iv) The ICC conducted an inquiry, examined the complainants and witnesses, and submitted its report dated 19.09.2024 recommending cancellation of the petitioner’s admission. Acting on the said report, the Registrar issued orders dated 20.09.2024 striking the petitioner’s name off the University rolls.

v) Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 29304 of 2024 before this Court. By order dated 04.11.2024, the Court set aside the ICC report and expulsion order, holding that the inquiry had not been conducted in accordance with Regulation 8 of the UGC Regulations, 2015, and directed the respondents to conduct a fresh inquiry within fifteen (15) days, strictly following due procedure.

vi) Pursuant thereto, the ICC issued a fresh notice dated 06.11.2024 enclosing copies of the complaints and calling for the petitioner’s explanation, which was submitted on 09.11.2024. A de novo inquiry was held on 18.11.2024 at Hyderabad in the presence of the complainants, witnesses, and the petitioner. The ICC thereafter issued its report dated 19.11.2024 again finding the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment and recommending expulsion, striking off his name from the rolls, and denying re-admission.

vii) On the basis of the ICC’s recommendation, the competent authority passed the co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 67919

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADK. Lakshman, JMeghdeep Saha – AppellantVersusThe English and Foreign Languages University – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.7693 OF 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Lakshman, J
Meghdeep Saha – Appellant
Versus
The English and Foreign Languages University – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.7693 OF 2025