Facts of Case:

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (NIT) Bhopal, was dismissed from service following allegations of sexual harassment. The dismissal resulted from a departmental inquiry, which the petitioner challenged on grounds of procedural lapses and violations of principles of natural justice.

Contentions of the Petitioner

1. Procedural Violations:
   • The case was improperly referred to a faculty member (Respondent No. 4) who was not an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) member, violating Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (POSH) Act, 2013.
   • The constitution of the ICC did not comply with POSH Act provisions or the UGC Regulations, 2015.
   • The ICC required the petitioner to submit a reply in an unreasonably short timeframe (4 hours), and when the response was provided, it was rejected, leading to an ex parte decision.
2. Breach of Inquiry Protocol:
   • The inquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965.
   • The petitioner was denied the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and no witness statements were formally recorded.
3. Non-Compliance with POSH Act:
   • The IC failed to adhere to Section 10, which mandates conciliation as a preliminary step before initiating a formal inquiry.
   • Provisions of Section 11, requiring adherence to prescribed Service Rules, were also violated.

4. Timeliness of Complaint:
   • The complaint was filed beyond the three-month limitation period under Section 9 of the POSH Act.

Contentions of the Respondents

1. Maintainability of the Petition:
   • The respondents argued that the petition was barred under Section 29 of the National Institute of Technology Act, 2007, which mandates arbitration for disputes between employees and the institution.
2. Validity of Inquiry:
   • The departmental inquiry followed proper procedure, and the statements of witnesses substantiated the charges against the petitioner.
   • The punishment of dismissal was appropriate and proportional to the findings of the inquiry.
3. Jurisdiction of the Court:
   • The respondents contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to act as an appellate authority over the findings of the domestic inquiry.

Court’s Observations

1. Violation of POSH Act Provisions:
   • The court noted a clear failure to comply with Sections 10 and 11 of the POSH Act. The ICC did not attempt conciliation before initiating an inquiry, as required.
2. Procedural Lapses in the Inquiry:
   • The inquiry did not meet the standards of natural justice, as:
     • Witnesses were not physically present before the Inquiry Officer.
     • The petitioner was not granted an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
   • The entire inquiry process was deemed an “eyewash,” lacking adherence to the principles laid down in the 1965 Rules.
3. Maintainability of the Petition:
   • The court held that while Section 29 of the NIT Act, 2007, allows disputes to be referred to arbitration, this remedy is not mandatory. In cases involving procedural lapses and violations of natural justice, the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Timeliness of Complaint:
   • The complaint was filed beyond the three-month limitation period stipulated by Section 9 of the POSH Act, rendering it procedurally flawed.

Court’s Decision

The court quashed the dismissal order, observing that the entire process, from the ICC’s inquiry to the departmental action, violated statutory provisions and principles of natural justice. The court emphasized adherence to the POSH Act and related Service Rules in future cases, particularly the need for conciliation under Section 10 and a fair inquiry under Section 11. The institution was directed to ensure that ICC inquiries comply with the UGC Regulations, 2015, and the POSH Act, 2013.