Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition challenging the dismissal of an Assistant Professor at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (NIT), Bhopal following allegations of sexual harassment made by students, a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dwivedi, J., deemed the internal inquiry, procedurally defective and contrary to natural justice and quashed the suspension orders and subsequent disciplinary actions.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner, an Assistant Professor at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (NIT), Bhopal, was dismissed from service following allegations of sexual harassment made by students. The complaints were investigated by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), and the petitioner was ultimately found guilty by an internal inquiry. Aggrieved by the result of ICC, the petitioner challenged the proceedings and asserted that the internal inquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice, with procedural lapses including denial of opportunities to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses. The petitioner alleged that the complaints were part of a conspiracy instigated by a senior faculty member (respondent 3) who harbored personal animosity against him.
Moot Point
-
Whether the inquiry conducted by the ICC adhered to the principles of natural justice?
-
Whether the ICC followed the prescribed legal and procedural requirements under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act)?
-
Whether the petitioner was denied a fair hearing, rendering the inquiry and subsequent punishment invalid?
-
Whether the petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite alternative remedies being available under the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007 (NIT Act)?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner contended that the inquiry was flawed and conducted in violation of natural justice principles, including denial of cross-examination of complainants, non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the POSH Act and Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS Rules), incomplete complaint submissions, non-adherence to the three-month limitation period for filing complaints under the POSH Act and bias in the inquiry process. The petitioner alleged that complaints were fabricated and part of a conspiracy orchestrated by respondent 3.
However, the respondents contended that the internal inquiry was conducted per the law and argued that the petitioner had shown confidence in the inquiry officer during initial proceedings. It was argued that the petition under Article 226 was not maintainable as alternative remedies were available under the NIT Act, 2007.
Court’s Analysis
The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that arbitration under Section 29 of the NIT Act is mandatory. The Court stated that the allegations of procedural irregularities and natural justice violations warranted judicial review. The Court held that the petitioner is not precluded from filing a writ petition under Article 226, as alternative remedies is not mandatory.
The Court noted that the ICC failed to comply with essential legal requirements under Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the POSH Act, such as ensuring complaints were filed within the three-month statutory limitation period, granting the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and adhering to principles of natural justice during the inquiry. The Court noted that the ICC report was prepared without providing the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine complainants or present evidence, thereby, violating Rule 14 of the CCS Rules,
The Court characterised the inquiry process as an “eye wash,” as there was no evidence of witnesses appearing before the committee or any substantial opportunity provided to the petitioner to defend himself. The Court further observed that procedural lapses and the involvement of biased individuals in the inquiry cast serious doubts on the impartiality of the proceedings.
The Court relied on Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297 and emphasised that ICC proceedings must be full-fledged inquiries conducted in compliance with natural justice principles.
The Court further stated that Section 10 of the POSH Act prescribes that the ICC or the Local Committee, before initiating any inquiry in the matter, may try to settle the dispute by referring the matter for conciliation.
“The language used in the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Committee is under obligation to make an attempt to settle the matter by way of conciliation and if it fails then only the matter has to be enquired into as per Service Rules”
Court’s Decision
The Court held that the inquiry and subsequent actions were conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and procedural laws. The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders of termination and suspension.
[Kali Charna Sabat v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine MP 7314, Decided on 08-11-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjay Dwivedi
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Manoj Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Lavanya Verma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Yogesh Bhatnagar, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
