[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Sri Ajit Kumar Jena vs The Assam University on 20 February, 2026
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010030282026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/895/2026
SRI AJIT KUMAR JENA
SON OF LATE MURLIDHAR JENA PRESENTLY RESIDING AT QUARTERNO.
LF/1, FACULTY QUARTERS,ASSAM UNIVERSITY, SILCHAR,DISTT.
CACHAR, ASSAM 788011AND A PERMANENT RESIDENT OFVILLAGE
BARBATIA, P.S. KAMARDA,DISTT. BALESHWAR, ODISHA756079
VERSUS
THE ASSAM UNIVERSITY, SILCHAR
A CENTRAL UNIVERSITYESTABLISHED UNDER THE ASSAMUNIVERSITY
ACT, 1989REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRARASSAM UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS,SILCHAR, ASSAM , PIN-788011
2:THE VICE CHANCELLOR
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
SILCHARASSAM UNIVERSITYSILCHAR
ASSAM 788011
2:THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
(BEING THE VICE CHANCELLOR
ASSAM UNIVERSITY )
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
3:THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
ASSSAM UNIVERSITY
CONSTITUTED UNDER REGULATION 4 OF THE UGC (PREVENTION
PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN
EMPLOYEES AND STUDENTS IN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS)
Page No.# 2/14
REGULATIONS
2015
(REP. BY THE PRESIDENT
INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
ASSAM UNIVERSITY )
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
3:THE REGISTRAR
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
SILCHARCAMPUS
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM 788011
4:PROF. KARABI DUTTA CHOUDHURY
(PRESIDENT
INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
ASSSAM UNIVERSITY )
DEAN
SCHOOLOF PHYSICAL SCIENCES
C/O- DEPTT. OF MATHEMATICS
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
5:THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CASTE BASED DISCRIMINATION
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
REP. HEREIN BY ITS CHAIRPERSON
UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
6:PROF. BELA DAS
CHAIRPERSON
STANDING COMMITTEE ON CASTE BASED DISCRIMINATION
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
C/O- DEPARTMENT OF BENGALI
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
Page No.# 3/14
ASSAM
PIN-788011
7:PROF. TARUN BIKASH SUKAI
CHAIRPERSON
STANDING COMMITTEE ON CASTE BASED DISCRIMINATION
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
HOD
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
C/O-ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
8:PROF. DR. RITWIKA RAJENDRA
C/O- DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
9:PROF. SUBHABRATA DUTTA
C/O- DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
10:ASSAM UNIVERSITY EMPLOYEES THRIFT AND CREDIT COOPERATIVE
SOCIETY
9A SOCIRTY REGD. UNDER THE ASSAM COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT
1949)
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
C/O- ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
11:PEARLY DEY
C/O- DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
Page No.# 4/14
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
12:ANAMIKA DUTTA
C/O- DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
13:CICILIA SONGATE
C/O- DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
14:ROSHNI DEVI BARMAN
C/O- DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-788011
15:UTSAV SINGH
C/O- DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK
ASSAM UNIVERSITY
ASSAM UNIVERSITY CAMPUS
SILCHAR
ASSAM
PIN-78801
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C TALUKDAR, Y A SARKAR,K M KALITA,A
GAUTAM,MR. S SARMA,MR. T K BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ASSAM UNIVERSITY,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Page No.# 5/14
Date : 20-02-2026
Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A. Gautam, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned standing counsel, Assam
University.
A perusal of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition
reveals that the challenge presented is broadly on the following issues;
(a) The validity of the report submitted by the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC)
constituted to enquire into the complaints of commission of sexual harassment by the
petitioner, herein.
(b) The orders of suspension issued in respect of the petitioner after the complaints
against him was so lodged and the prolonged continuance of his period of suspension.
(c) The validity of institution of a Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner
basing on a preliminary investigation report submitted by the ICC constituted in the
matter, without first furnishing a copy thereof to the petitioner and permitting him to
submit an appeal, thereof, before the next higher body so specified.
(d) Unauthorised deduction made from the subsistence allowance authorized to him.
Issue notice of motion returnable in 04 weeks.
Since Mr. S.C. Keyal has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, no
formal notice is required to be sent to the said respondents.
However, extra copies of the writ petition, requisite in numbers, be furnished to the
learned counsel for the respondent.
Page No.# 6/14
Petitioner to take steps for service of notice upon respondent Nos. 6 to 12 by speed
post.
Steps within 03 (three) working days.
Notice upon the proforma respondent Nos. 13 to 17 is not being issued at this
stage.
The petitioner has prayed for an interim direction.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties on the interim relief sought for by the
petitioner.
Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to the
challenges presented by the petitioner on the issues noticed, hereinabove, has made the
following submissions;
(i) Mr. Sarma, learned counsel submits that after the complaints lodged against the
petitioner by the few students, came to be placed before the ICC, the ICC had inquired
into the matter and submitted its report. The petitioner had come to learn about the
submission of such report by the ICC only after receiving an order of suspension dated
05-08-2025, wherein, it was highlighted that the same was so done basing on the
preliminary investigation report submitted by the ICC. Mr. Sarma submits that the
petitioner had approached the Chairman of the ICC for being furnished with a copy of the
report submitted in the matter by the ICC. However, the Chairman of the ICC vide a mail
dated 08-09-2025 refused to furnish a copy of the said report to the petitioner, by
projecting that the same was a report submitted only after preliminary investigation was
Page No.# 7/14
made in the matter and that the copy of the same was not mandated to be furnished to
the parties to the complaint.
(ii) Mr. Sarma submits that although the Chairman of the ICC had projected that the
report submitted was in pursuance to a preliminary investigation carried out and the same
was again reiterated in the order of suspension dated 05-08-2025 issued to the petitioner,
the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner basing on the said preliminary investigation
report proceeded to institute a Departmental Proceeding against the vide issuance of
Memorandum of Charge dated 16-01-2026.
(iii) Mr. Sarma by referring to the provisions of the "University Grants Commission
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and
Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015" (in short "the Regulations
of 2015"), more particularly, provisions of Regulation 8, thereof, submits that a copy of
the report prepared by the ICC is mandatorily required to be furnished to all the parties to
the complaint. Mr. Sarma submits that a copy of the report prepared by the ICC was
admittedly not furnished to the petitioner, thereby, depriving him of his right to prefer an
appeal in the matter. Mr. Sarma submits that the University authorities acted in the matter
in haste in issuing the impugned Memorandum of Charge dated 16-01-2016, without first
requiring the ICC to furnish a copy of its report to the petitioner and thereby facilitate him
to exercise his right of appeal.
(iv) Mr. Sarma further submits that the petitioner is covered by the provision of the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short "the
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965") and in terms of the proviso to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14, the report
Page No.# 8/14
submitted by the ICC has been elevated to that of an enquiry report submitted by the
Enquiry Officer under the provision of Rule 14. Accordingly, he submits that further
Departmental Action by the Disciplinary Authority would be permissible to be so carried
out against the petitioner in the matter after a final report is submitted by the ICC. Mr.
Sarma, accordingly, submits that the Departmental Proceeding admittedly having been so
instituted basing on a preliminary investigation report submitted by the ICC, the
Departmental Proceeding instituted against the petitioner would not be maintainable.
(v) Mr. Sarma, by taking this Court to the various orders of suspension passed against
the petitioner submits that the orders so issued towards placing the petitioner under
suspension and also extending the period of suspension having been so issued in clear
violation of the provisions of Rule 10 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, the same would
mandate an interference from this Court.
(vi) Mr. Sarma, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent
authorities with a view to harass the petitioner has been deducting substantive amounts
from his subsistence allowance towards satisfaction of dues/ claims raised by the Thrift
Cooperative Society constituted by the employees of the respondent No. 1/ University. He
submits that the said deduction in terms of the decision of the Government of India being
not permissible, would mandate an interference from this Court.
(vii) In the above background, Mr. Sarma prays that this Court would be pleased to keep
in abeyance the Departmental Proceeding instituted against the petitioner along with the
orders of suspension issued in his case. Mr. Sarma has further prayed that in the event
the orders of suspension are not interfered, with at this stage, this Court would restrain
Page No.# 9/14
the respondent authorities from making any unauthorized deduction from the subsistence
allowance authorized to the petitioner in the matter.
Per contra, Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondents has made the
following submissions:
(i) Mr. Keyal, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that complaints having
been received against the petitioner of commission of sexual harassment upon the
students of the University, the matter was referred to the ICC. The ICC on examination of
the matter and after carrying out a preliminary investigation had submitted its report. Mr.
Keyal submits that the report submitted by the ICC having brought on record materials
justifying the complaints lodged against the petitioner by the students, the same was
considered to be a preliminary enquiry report and basing, thereon, the Disciplinary
Authority of the petitioner instituted a Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner
vide issuance of the Memorandum of Charge dated 16-01-2026, invoking the provision of
Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. Mr. Keyal has submitted that while a procedure has
been laid down under Rule 14 of the said Rules of 1965 for enquiry into the allegation
involving commission of sexual harassment at work place against women, the Disciplinary
Authority is not denuded of its power to institute such proceeding if on preliminary
enquiry made, the allegations made are found to be substantiated. Mr. Keyal submits that
the report furnished by the ICC on a preliminary investigation carried out having brought
on record materials highlighting commission of sexual harassment upon the complainant
students by the petitioner, herein, the Disciplinary Authority was not prevented to institute
a Departmental Proceeding against the petitioner, herein, invoking the provision of Rule
Page No.# 10/14
14 of the Rules of 1965. He submits that the said course of action is permissible to be
taken and in all cases the Disciplinary Authority is not required to wait till a final report is
submitted in the matter by the ICC. Accordingly, he submits that the Departmental
Proceeding instituted against the petitioner would not mandate interference from this
Court at this stage and the same be permitted to be taken to its logical conclusion. He
submits that the petitioner would be given all due opportunity to defend his case in the
matter. Mr. Keyal, on instructions, has submitted that the petitioner has already submitted
his written statement against the said Memorandum of Charge and the same is under
consideration by this University authorities.
(ii) Mr. Keyal, however, submits that as to whether the ICC would now proceed to make
further enquiry into the matter and submit a final report or the Disciplinary Authority
would continue with the proceeding already instituted against the petitioner in pursuance
to the issuance of Memorandum of Charge dated 16-01-2026, is an issue which he would
make further submission, upon receiving complete instructions in the matter from the
authorities of the respondent University.
(iii) Mr. Keyal submits that given the nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner
any interference made with this order of suspension, at this stage, would not be in the
interest of the students pursuing their studies in the University, more particularly, in the
department, wherein, the petitioner is so working. Accordingly, he submits that the order
of suspension would not mandate interference from this Court, at this stage.
(iv) With regard to the deduction made from the subsistence allowance of the
petitioner, Mr. Keyal has submitted that he would receive instructions in the matter and
Page No.# 11/14
make his submissions, thereon, on the next date of listing. Accordingly, he prays that this
Court would be pleased not to restrain the University authorities from effecting said
deduction, at this stage.
The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly
considered.
The projection made in the writ petition reveals that the report of the ICC was not
furnished to the petitioner till the memorandum of charge came to be so issued to him. A
perusal of Regulation 8 of the Regulation of 2015, more particularly, Regulation 8(3),
thereof, reveals that furnishing of a copy of the recommendation of the ICC to the parties
to a complaint is a mandatory requirement. The same is also necessitated for the purpose
of filing of an appeal by either of the parties in terms of the provisions of Regulation 8(5).
The materials brought on record in the writ petition reveals that the recommendation of
the ICC were refused to be furnished to the petitioner on the plea that the same was so
made after a preliminary investigation into the complaints so placed before the ICC. The
said aspect of the matter is also found to have been reiterated in the order of suspension
issued in respect of the petitioner on 05-08-2025, wherein the said suspension is
projected to have been so effected basing on the preliminary report submitted in the
matter by the ICC. The provisions of Regulation 8(4) further mandate that the competent
authority is to act on the recommendation of the Committee within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of the enquiry report, unless an appeal against the findings is not
filed within the time by the either of the parties. Accordingly, this Court is of the, prima
facie, view that the Disciplinary Action basing on the ICC report would be permissible to
Page No.# 12/14
be so taken by the authorities only after the period of filing of an appeal by the either of
the parties before the ICC has lapsed and no such appeal was preferred. In the event the
appeal is so preferred the Disciplinary Action has to await the final orders passed in the
matter by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, furnishing of a copy of the ICC report to
the parties is a mandatory requirement which in the present proceeding is not found to
have been complied with.
This Court on perusal of the provisions of Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1965 finds that
the report of the ICC has been elevated to the status of a enquiry report submitted by an
Enquiry Officer in an enquiry conducted under the provision of Rule 14, thereof. However,
in the case in hand, it is found that the ICC has not furnished its final report. While the
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that basing on the report submitted by
the ICC after carrying out a preliminary investigation, it would not be permissible to
institute a departmental proceeding against the petitioner, it is the contention of the
learned counsel for the respondent University that such departmental proceeding would
be permissible to be instituted against the petitioner basing upon a preliminary enquiry
report submitted by the ICC. The said issue would require a detailed consideration by this
Court, which would be permissible only after the respondents have brought their stand on
record by way of filing affidavits. However, this Court notes that the provision of the
Regulation of 2015, more particularly, Regulation 8, having been found to have not
complied with by the University authority in the matter, this Court, pending consideration
of the issues raised in the proceeding by the parties, is of the considered view that the
Departmental Proceeding instituted against the petitioner would be required to be kept in
Page No.# 13/14
abeyance.
As regard to the challenge presented to the orders of suspension of the petitioner,
this Court, at this stage, considering the nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner,
refrains from examining the validity, thereof, and the same would be so examined after
the respondents have brought on record their respective pleadings.
The other issue raised by the petitioner pertaining to the deduction made from his
subsistence allowance towards meeting the claim/ dues of the Assam University
Employees Thrift & Credit Cooperative Society Ltd., this Court finds that under the
provisions of FR&SR, decision is in existence of as far back of 08-09-1959 and 20-11-1961
of the Government of India, barring deductions pertaining to amount due to cooperative
stores and cooperative credit societies from the subsistence allowance authorized to an
Government servants placed under suspension, without the consent of such Government
servant. The above position is contended by the learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner to
be in force as on date. Accordingly, prima facie, the deduction made from the subsistence
allowance of the petitioner being projected to have been so made without the prior
consent of the petitioner may not be permissible.
In view of the above, prima facie, conclusions reached by this Court, the following
directions are passed:-
(i) The Departmental Proceeding instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of
the Memorandum of Charge dated 16-01-2026, shall remain in abeyance, till the
returnable date.
Page No.# 14/14
(ii) The deduction made from the subsistence allowance of the petitioner towards
the dues of the Assam University Employees Thrift & Credit Cooperative Society
Ltd., being demonstrated by the petitioner to be not sustainable in view of the
decision of the Government of India existing in the matter, this Court restrains the
University authorities from making any further deductions from the subsistence
allowance of the petitioner, towards any dues/ claims of the said Thrift & Credit
Society of the employees of the respondent University, without first obtaining prior
consent from the petitioner for effecting such deductions.
The respondent University, as well as the other respondents are directed to bring
on record their respective stands by way of filing affidavits, before the next date of listing.
Registry to list this matter again after 04 weeks on a date to be fixed by it for
admission hearing.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
