Sexual Harassment Inquiry Against IIT Professor Quashed for Procedural Lapses, Non-Compliance with Vishaka Guidelines & CCS Rules: Delhi High Court - 2025-03-27

Delhi High Court Upholds Reinstatement of IIT Professor, Cites Grave Procedural Lapses in Sexual Harassment Inquiry

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi (IIT Delhi), upholding a Single Judge's decision to set aside the compulsory retirement of Professor Atul Kumar Mittal. The Division Bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sachin Datta , found significant procedural infractions in the conduct of the sexual harassment inquiry against the professor, rendering the consequent penalty unsustainable. The judgment, pronounced on March 27, 2025, emphasized the mandatory nature of procedural safeguards, including the role of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and the proper exercise of powers by the disciplinary authority.

Background of the Dispute

The case stemmed from sexual harassment complaints filed in 2013 by Ph.D. scholars against Professor Mittal . Following a preliminary fact-finding, IIT Delhi's Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee (SHCC) recommended a regular inquiry. Subsequently, a charge-sheet was issued, and various inquiry bodies were constituted, culminating in a report by a retired High Court Judge finding the charges proved. Professor Mittal was eventually compulsorily retired in 2016. This decision was challenged, and a Single Judge of the High Court, in February 2019, quashed the inquiry and the penalty, directing Professor Mittal 's reinstatement. IIT Delhi appealed this order.

Key Contentions

IIT Delhi (Appellants) , represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Gourab Banerji, argued that: * The inquiry was consistent with the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules). * Professor Mittal had preferred an "open inquiry" and participated in initial proceedings, thus waiving objections to procedural irregularities. * The Chairman of the Board of Governors (BOG) validly exercised emergency powers under Statute 7(4) of IIT Delhi Statutes to initiate the inquiry, given the BOG met infrequently. * Subsequent ratification by the BOG cured any initial defects. * Professor Mittal 's non-participation before the final inquiry officer (Justice (Retd.) Rekha Sharma ) weakened his claims of denial of natural justice.

Professor Atul Kumar Mittal (Respondent) , appearing in person, contended that: * The SHCC/ICC was the sole body mandated to conduct the inquiry as per Vishaka Guidelines and the POSH Act, 2013, and could not delegate this task. * His detailed statement of defence and requests for essential documents were not properly considered by the inquiry authorities or the disciplinary authority (BOG). * The charge-sheet and constitution of the inquiry authority lacked valid approval from the BOG itself. * The BOG mechanically accepted the inquiry report without applying its mind to substantive and procedural lapses.

Court's Scrutiny of Procedural Lapses

The High Court meticulously examined the procedural conduct of the inquiry and found several critical flaws:

1. The Imperative Role of the Complaints Committee: The Court underscored that following the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan (1997) , and subsequent clarifications in Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v. Union of India (2004, 2013) , the Complaints Committee (later ICC under the POSH Act) is deemed to be the Inquiring Authority for sexual harassment complaints. This is also reflected in the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

The judgment noted: > "Thus, it is unmistakably provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment, the Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be the Inquiring Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority." (Para 67)

The Court found that the SHCC, after an initial decision to inquire, improperly decided to institute a "regular inquiry" by a different body, the 'Board of Inquiry'. This deviation was deemed a significant procedural error. The Court rejected IIT's argument of acquiescence by Professor Mittal , noting his subsequent protests and requests for the matter to be referred to the ICC.

2. Disciplinary Authority's Approval for Charge-Sheet Essential: The Court found that the decision to hold an inquiry and issue the charge-sheet was taken by the Chairman of the BOG, not the BOG itself, which is the designated Disciplinary Authority. Reliance on Statute 7(4) (emergency powers of the Chairman) was held to be misplaced, as the timelines did not suggest an emergent situation.

Citing Union of India and Others v. B. V. Gopinath (2014) , the Court reiterated that the Disciplinary Authority must apply its mind and approve the charge-sheet. > "Such a charge-sheet can only be issued upon approval by the appointing authority..." (Excerpt from B.V. Gopinath , Para 90 of current judgment)

Further, referencing Sunny Abraham v. Union of India (2021) , the Court held that ex post facto ratification by the BOG cannot cure a fundamentally defective charge memorandum that was "non est" from its inception. > "What is non-existent in the eye of the law cannot be revived retrospectively. Life cannot be breathed into the stillborn charge memorandum." (Excerpt from Sunny Abraham , Para 99 of current judgment)

3. Non-Consideration of Defence and Non-Supply of Documents: The judgment highlighted that Professor Mittal 's detailed statement of defence (dated 07.05.2013) was not considered by the Inquiry Officer (Justice (Retd.) Rekha Sharma ). The Court rejected the argument that the inquiry was de novo, stating it was a continuation after the previous inquiry members withdrew.

Crucially, essential documents, including authenticated SMS records requested by Professor Mittal and initially directed to be supplied by an earlier inquiry authority, were never provided. > "The inquiry report does not disclose: i. any attempt to requisition the necessary information from the service provider; ii. specific reason/s as to why the course suggested...by the earlier ‘Inquiry Authority’, was not required to be adhered to..." (Para 109)

The Court also noted that the inquiry report referred to allegations concerning another student not mentioned in the articles of charge, violating principles of natural justice.

Final Verdict and Path Forward

The Division Bench concluded that the procedural infractions were significant and vitiated the entire inquiry process. > "For all the above reasons, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge." (Para 112)

The Court clarified that its decision was based on procedural requirements and not on the merits of the allegations. It affirmed the Single Judge's direction that IIT Delhi is at liberty to conduct an inquiry afresh, strictly adhering to the guidelines laid down in Vishaka, Medha Kotwal Lele, and the provisions of the POSH Act, 2013.

The appeal by IIT Delhi was consequently disposed of.