High Court Quashes Asst. Professor's Termination: Sexual Harassment Inquiry Violated Natural Justice & POSH Act Procedures - 2025-05-10

High Court Slams "Eye Wash" Inquiry, Reinstates MANIT Professor

Termination Based on Flawed Sexual Harassment Probe Overturned for Violating Natural Justice and Prescribed Laws

Bhopal: The High Court has delivered a significant ruling by quashing the termination of an Assistant Professor from the Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal. The Court found that the departmental inquiry into allegations of sexual harassment, which led to his dismissal, was conducted in "complete violation of principles of natural justice" and contrary to the procedures prescribed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. The Court set aside the termination order dated February 29, 2024, the associated inquiry reports, charge sheet, and suspension orders.

Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in the Department of Materials and Metallurgical Engineering at MANIT, alleged that he was a victim of a conspiracy orchestrated by a senior faculty member, Dr. C. Sasikumar (respondent No. 3), due to professional jealousy. He claimed this conspiracy led to false complaints of sexual harassment being lodged against him by students. The petitioner challenged his termination, the three inquiry reports by the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC), the charge sheet, and his prolonged suspension, seeking reinstatement and all consequential benefits.

Petitioner's Plea: A Travesty of Justice

The petitioner argued that: * The entire inquiry process was a sham, denying him a proper opportunity of hearing and the right to cross-examine complainants or witnesses. * His evidence was not considered, and the procedure adopted was unknown to law. * There were severe procedural violations under the POSH Act, 2013, including issues with the timeliness and manner of complaints, the constitution and conduct of the ICC, failure to attempt conciliation (Section 10), and breaches of confidentiality (Section 16). * The inquiry did not adhere to Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. * He alleged bias and mala fide intentions on the part of certain respondents.

Respondents' Defence: Inquiry Justified

The respondent institution contended that: * The writ petition was not maintainable due to an alternative remedy of arbitration available under Section 29 of the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007. * The High Court should not act as an appellate authority or reassess evidence in a domestic inquiry. * The inquiry was conducted according to the prescribed procedure, and the petitioner had initially expressed confidence in the Enquiry Officer. * The charges were found to be proved, and the punishment was not excessive.

High Court's Scrutiny: Upholding Natural Justice

The Court meticulously examined the arguments and records.

On Maintainability of the Petition: The Court dismissed the preliminary objection regarding the alternative remedy. It held that Section 29 of the NIT Act, 2007, provides an employee with the choice to refer a dispute to arbitration and does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when "enquiry and punishment based thereupon are clear sign of violation of principles of natural justice."

Procedural Lapses Under POSH Act, 2013: The Court found several breaches of the POSH Act and its rules:

* Complaint Timeline and Manner (Section 9 & Rule 7): Complaints were made beyond the stipulated three-month period, and the required manner of filing (e.g., six copies, supporting documents) was not adhered to. The petitioner was not supplied with complaints/documents as mandated.

* Conciliation (Section 10): No attempt was made by the ICC to settle the dispute through conciliation before initiating an inquiry, a direct violation of Section 10.

* Inquiry Procedure (Section 11): The inquiry was not conducted in accordance with the applicable service rules or principles of natural justice. The Court noted, "There is a complete violation of the provision of sections 10 and 11 of the Act, 2013."

Flawed Disciplinary Process under CCS Rules: The Court highlighted that the inquiry, which was to be conducted as per Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (with the ICC acting as the Inquiring Authority for sexual harassment complaints), was deeply flawed:

* No Opportunity to Cross-Examine: The "enquiry report does not reveal whether any complainant appeared or was produced during the course of enquiry and whether petitioner was granted any opportunity to cross-examine them or not."

* Witness Statements: The Court found no evidence that complainants' statements were properly recorded during the inquiry. Witnesses who submitted statements online were not made available for cross-examination by the petitioner.

* Defence Evidence Ignored: The petitioner’s written evidence was reportedly not taken on record.

* Improper Questioning: The Presenting Officer questioned the petitioner without calling him as a witness, contrary to Rule 14(18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The Imperative of Natural Justice: Relying on precedents like Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India (which establishes ICC reports as deemed inquiry reports under service rules) and AIR India Limited v. L.S. Sibu (mandating a full-fledged inquiry by ICC complying with natural justice), the Court underscored the non-negotiable nature of fair procedure.

Pivotal Court Observations

The Court made several strong observations, including: * "...in absence of any statement of witnesses or an opportunity to cross-examine them, the procedure adopted by the respondents is unknown to law. Thus, it is clear that the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice..." (Para 20) * "The manner in which the enquiry was conducted and the procedure adopted by the respondents are unacceptable and contrary to law. Only on the basis of complaint made and reply submitted by the respondents, the finding given by the Enquiry Committee cannot be given a seal of approval..." (Para 20) * "This Court can say that the enquiry is nothing but an eye wash because the same was conducted without following any procedure which had to be mandatorily followed... such an enquiry is no enquiry in the eyes of law and it is in clear violation of principles of natural justice." (Para 22)

Judgment and Implications

Allowing the petition, the High Court declared: "from the very inception respondents have not followed any valid procedure for conducting the enquiry or the requirement of provisions of the Act of 2013. Not only this, the procedure to conduct an enquiry as provided under Rule 14 of Rules of 1965 has also not been followed and as such, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer cannot be considered to be sustainable in the eyes of law and any punishment based upon said finding cannot be allowed to stand."

Consequently, the Court set aside: 1. The termination order dated February 29, 2024 (P/2). 2. All three inquiry reports of the ICC (dated 3.11.2022, 14.9.2023, and 25.1.2024). 3. The charge sheet dated January 20, 2023. 4. The initial suspension order dated December 30, 2022 (P/12) and its subsequent extensions.

The petitioner had also sought consequential benefits, and the allowance of the petition implies these should follow. This judgment serves as a stern reminder to institutions about the critical importance of adhering strictly to due process, principles of natural justice, and the specific mandates of the POSH Act when conducting inquiries, particularly in sensitive matters like sexual harassment allegations.