Madhya Pradesh High Court
Director Maulana Azad National ... vs Dr. Kali Charna Sabat on 3 March, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
1 WA-552-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 3 rd OF MARCH, 2025
WRIT APPEAL No. 552 of 2025
DIRECTOR MAULANA AZAD NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY BHOPAL
Versus
DR. KALI CHARNA SABAT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Shobha Menon - Senior Advocate along with Shri Rahul Choubey
and Shri Yogesh Bhatnagar - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma - Senior Advocate along with Ms.Lavanya
Verma - Advocate for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, Chief Justice
The present appeal was filed on the various grounds such as the
petition preferred by respondent No.1 suffered from deliberate suppression
of fact, inasmuch as, in Para 2 of the writ petition it was stated that no
proceedings on the same subject have been previously instituted in any
Court. Thus, it is deliberate wrong statement inasmuch as respondent No.1
earlier preferred W.P No.9376/2023 dated 08.05.2023 wherein challenge was
made to the ICC report (preliminary) dated 03.11.2022, charge-sheet dated
20.01.2023 and also suspension order dated 30.12.2022 and extensions
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
2 WA-552-2025
thereof.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that In
so far as suspension and its extensions are concerned, the court did not fault
or any infirmity and refused to entertain the challenge thereof, as such, in the
subsequent proceedings, the order of suspension and its extensions thereof,
could not have been challenged. Respondent no.1 gave up his challenge to
ICC report (preliminary) dated 03.11.2022 and charge sheet dated
20.01.2023, in W.P.No.9376/2023 and had not sought any liberty from this
court, as such, even the same could not have been challenged in
subsequent proceedings.
3. It is further submitted that while passing the impugned order the
writ Court has failed to appreciate that While dismissing W.P.No.9376/2023,
this court granted liberty to challenge order of termination and no liberty was
granted to either challenge the ICC report or charge sheet or suspension and
its extensions thereof, as such, challenging the same in subsequent
proceedings is nothing but a abuse of process of law.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that while passing the
impugned order the writ Court has not appreciated that respondent no.1 has
assailed the so-called order of termination of his contract dated 29.02.2024.
But the same was merely a consequential order. In fact the principal decision
of the Board of Governors, taken in their 75th Meeting dated 23.02.2024 was
not called in question. In absence of challenge to the main decision of Board,
respondent no.1 could not have assailed the consequential order. Thus, while
passing the impugned order learned Single Judge has not appreciated that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
3 WA-552-2025
appointing and disciplinary authority The appointing and Disciplinary
Authority of respondent no.1 is the Board of Governor and it is by virtue of
their decision, that service contract of respondent no.1 has been terminated,
despite thereof, respondent no.l had not impleaded the Board of Governors in
the W.P.No.10021/2024. In their absence, the validity of termination of
contract of respondent no.1, could not have been looked into by the writ
Court.
5. Lastly, it is submitted that the writ Court has the writ court has
misconstrued the provisions of Section 29 of N.I.T Act, 2007 which
prescribes efficacious alternative remedy to respondent no.1 before the
Tribunal of Arbitration, inasmuch as, the same gives adequate redressal
forum for settling the grievances. Merely by the fact, that it is the choice at
the request of employee, the same does not cease to be efficacious
alternative remedy. The law ordains restraint in the matter where alternative
remedy is available. The procedure for invocation is a separate issue. As
such, entertaining petition of respondent no.1 notwithstanding availability of
alternative remedy is not proper and cannot be sustained in law. Thus, the
present appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. Regarding filing earlier writ petition mentioned above, same has not
been disputed by the counsel for the respondent No.1, however he submits
that when he challenged the suspension and extension of suspension and
charge-sheet meanwhile the termination order dated 29.02.2024 was passed.
Thus, the writ Court observed that the writ petition had become infructuous.
Thus, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that since the issue not
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
4 WA-552-2025
adjudicated by the writ Court in the writ petition, therefore, it was open again
to the writ petitioner and accordingly he challenged the suspension order,
extension, charge-sheet, enquiry report and termination in the writ petition.
7. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the appointment letter dated
24.02.2020, the appointment of the respondent No.1 was for a period of 3
years, however, in the said communication it is further stated that the
extension can be granted for further 2 years but no further extension beyond
total 5 years.
8. It is not disputed that pursuant to the appointment letter dated
24.02.2020, the respondent no.1 had joined on 22.12.2020 hence the said
appointment was for 3 years i.e up to 21.12.2020. The writ petitioner was
suspended thereafter which finally led to the dismissal order dated
29.02.2024.
9. From perusal of the impugned order dated 08.11.2024, the writ
Court has rejected preliminary objection raised by the appellant herein with
regard to maintainability of the petition. As noted above, the counsel for the
appellant herein has pointed out that as per Section 29 of the Act 2007, the
petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India cannot be filed
directly before the High Court. First, alternative remedy available could have
been availed by the petitioner, but according to counsel for the petitioner,
under the existing circumstances when enquiry and punishment based
thereupon are clear sign of violation of principles of natural justice, then
alternative remedy is not a remedy which was to be followed mandatorily
prior to approaching the Court and as such according to counsel for
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
5 WA-552-2025
the petitioner, the submission so advanced by counsel for the respondents
is misconceived and nothing wrong has been committed by filing a petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Here, Section 29 of the Act,
2007 plays an important role to resolve the dispute which reads as under:-
"29.(1) Any of its employees shall, at the request of the
employee concerned or at the instance of the Institute
be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of
one member appointed by the Institute, one member
nominated by the employee, and an umpire appointed
by the Visitor.
(2) The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and shall
not be questioned in any court.
(3) No suit or proceeding shall lie in any court in
respect of any matter which is required by sub-section
(1) to be referred to the Tribunal of Arbitration.
(4) The Tribunal of Arbitration shall have power to
regulate its own procedure.
(5) Nothing in any law for the time being in force
relating to arbitration shall apply."
and any of its employees shall, at the request of the employe
e
10. The learned writ Court has observed that it is the choice of
concerned
the employee to avail the forum of Arbitration, but it does not mean that
in every dispute between the employee and the Institute, such a remedy
of Arbitration has to be availed. If this Court find substance in
the submission so advanced by counsel for the petitioner in respect
of violation of principles of natural justice, then it will consider
whether petition is maintainable or not, but so far as Section 29 of the Act,
2007 is concerned, the learned writ Court opined that it does not preclude the
petitioner from availing remedy available under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India because it is the choice of an employee to refer a
dispute to the Arbitration Tribunal, if he/she so desires and as is clear from
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
6 WA-552-2025
the record that the petitioner being an employee has not made any request to
refer the dispute to the Arbitration Tribunal and under such circumstances,
it would not come in the way to file a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. We agree with the opinion rendered by the writ
Court above.
11. The writ Court has also gone through the record of Board of
Governors (BoG) in its 7th meeting held on 13.12.2022 which in the capacity
of disciplinary authority approved the decision for initiating the disciplinary
proceeding against the petitioner based upona preliminary investigation
report of Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) and an order in this regard
was passed on 30.12.2022 (Annexure P/12) placing the petitioner under
suspension. Thereafter, vide order dated 20.01.2023 (Annexure. P/18),
a memorandum was issued to the petitioner containing Statement of Articles
of Charge along with Statement of Imputation of Misconduct or Misbehavior
in support of the Articles of Charge and also the list of documents and the
witnesses. Thus, the enquiry was to be conducted as per Rule 14 of the
Rules, 1965 in view of the amendment made in sub- rule (2) of Rule 14 of
Rules, 1965 which reads as under:-
"14 (2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the
opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the
truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour
against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into,
or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the
Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may
be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof:
("Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual
harassment within the meaning of Rule 3-C of the
Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
7 WA-552-2025
Complaints Committee Established in each Ministry or
Department or Office for inquiring into
such complaints, shall be deemed to be the Inquiring
Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority for
the purpose of these rules andthe Complaints
Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not
been prescribed for the Complaints Committee for
holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual
harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in
accordance with the procedure laid down in these
rules."
12. The misconduct as alleged against the petitioner is provided in
Rule3-C of the C.C.S (conduct) Rules, 1964, which reads thus:-
"3C. Prohibition of sexual harassment of working
women :-
(1) No Government servant shall indulge in any act of
sexual harassment of any woman at any work place.
(2) Every Government servant who is incharge of a
work place shall take appropriate steps to prevent sexual
harassment to any woman at the work place.
Explanation. -
(I) For the purpose of this rule, -
(a) "sexual harassment" includes any one or more of the
following acts or behaviour (whether directly or by
implication) namely: -
(i) physical contact and advances; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) making sexually coloured remarks; or
(iv) showing pornography; or
(i) any other unwelcome physical, verbal, non-verbal
conduct of a sexual nature.
(b) the following circumstances, among other
circumstances, if it occurs or is present in relation to or
connected with any act or behaviour of sexual
harassment may amount to sexual harassment: -
(i) implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment
in employment; or
(ii) implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment
in employment; or
(iii) implied or explicit threat about her present or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
8 WA-552-2025
future employment status; or
(iv) interference with her work or creating an
intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment
for her; or
(v) humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or
safety. (c)
"workplace" includes,-
(i) any department, organization, undertaking,
establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or
unit which is established, owned, controlled or wholly
or substantially financed by funds provided directly or
indirectly by the Central Government;
CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (CONDUCT) RULES,
(iii) any sports institute, stadium, sports complex or
competition or games venue, whether residential or not
used for training, sports or other activities relating
thereto;
(iv) any place visited by the employee arising out of or
during the course of employment including
transportation provided by the employer for undertaking
such journey;
(v) a dwelling place or a house"
13. The learned writ Court has observed that the Act, 2013 has been
made with an object to create workable atmosphere for the women in the
workplace and to provide them right of equality, life and liberty and to avoid
insecure and hostile work environment in working place. Such an Act has
been introduced containing mechanism so as to punish a person who violates
the provisions of the Act, 2013. If any of the misconduct, as has been
defined under Rule 3C of the Rules, 1964 is committed, then complaint has
to be made by an aggrieved woman as per Section 9 of the Act, 2013.
14. As per Section 9 of the Act, 2013, a complaint of
sexual harassment has to be made by any aggrieved woman to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
9 WA-552-2025
Internal Committee or the Local Committee within a period of three
months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incidents, within
a period of three months from the date of last incident.
15. However, Section 10 of the Act, 2013 provides as to in
what manner complaint made by the aggrieved woman has to be dealt
with. Section 10 prescribes that the Internal Committee or a Local
Committee before initiating any enquiry in the matter may try to settle the
dispute by referring the matter for conciliation and thereafter enquiry shall be
conducted as per Section 11 of the Act, 2013.
16. The said 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.
Thus, the writ Court has opined that there is a complete violation of the
provision of Sections 10 and 11 of the Act, 2013.
17. It is important to consider the requirement of Section 9 of the Act
of 2013. Section 9 very clearly provides that the complaint should be made
within a period of three months from the date of last instance that too by the
aggrieved woman as specified in Section 2(a) but the complaints i.e.
Annexures P/6 to P/8 narrating the incidents were made beyond the period of
three months from the date of the incident. Rule 7 of Rules of 2013 provides
the manner in which complaint has to be filed but the complaints Annexures
P/6 to P/8 do not fulfill the said requirement. Rule 7 is required to be
reproduced hereinbelow so as to ascertain whether that has been followed or
not:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
10 WA-552-2025
"7 Manner of Inquiry into complaint.- (1) Subject to
the provisions of section 11, at the time of filing the
complaint, the complainant shall submit to the
Complaints Committee, six copies of the complaint
along with supporting documents and the names and
addresses of the witnesses. (2) On receipt of the
complaint, the Complaints Committee shall send one of
the copies received from the aggrieved woman
under sub-rule (I) to the respondent within a period of
seven working days. (3) The respondent shall file his
reply to the complaint along with his list of documents,
and names and addresses of witnesses, within a period
not exceeding ten working days from the date of receipt
of the documents specified under suberule (1).
(4) The Complaints Committee shall make inquiry into
the complaint in accordance with the principles of
natural justice.
(5) The Complaints Committee shall have the right to
terminate the inquiry: proceedings or to give an ex-parte
decision on the complaint, if the complainant or
respondent fails, without sufficient cause, to present
herself or himself for three consecutive hearings'
convened by the Chairperson or Presiding Officer, as
the case may be:
Provided that such termination or ex-parte order may
not be passed without giving a notice in writing, fifteen
days in advance, to the party concerned.
(6) The parties shall not be allowed to bring in any
legal practitioner to represent them in their case at any
stage of the proceedings before the Complaints
Committee.
(7) In conducting the inquiry, a minimum of three
Members of the Complaints Committee including the
Presiding Officer or the Chairperson, as the case may
be, shall be present."
18. On 20.09.2022, petitioner was issued notice i.e. Annexure P/10
to appear before the ICC but that notice does not specify about supplying the
complaints/documents as mandatory as per Rule 7 of Rules of 2013. The
enquiry was finalized by the ICC and report prepared i.e. Annexure P/11
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
11 WA-552-2025
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and it is in clear
violation of Rule 14 of Rules of 1965. 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. Only on the basis of charges levelled and reply submitted by the
petitioner, the Enquiry Committee prepared its report and supplied it to the
petitioner on 20.11.2022.
19. The Supreme Court in case of Medha Kotwal Lele and others Vs.
Union of India and others reported in (2013)1 SCC 297 has observed as
under:-
" 44. In what we have discussed above, we are of
the considered view that guidelines in Vishaka [Vishaka
v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC
(Cri) 932] should not remain symbolic and the
following further directions are necessary until
legislative enactment on the subject is in place:
44.1: The States and Union Territories which have not
yet carried out adequate and appropriate amendments in
their respective Civil Services Conduct Rules (by
whatever name hese Rules are called) shall do so within
two months from today by providing that the report of
the Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an
inquiry report in a disciplinary action under such Civil
Services Conduct Rules. In other words, the disciplinary
authority shall treat the report/findings, etc. of
the Complaints Committee as the findings in a
disciplinary inquiry against the delinquent employee
and shall act on such report accordingly. The findings
and the report of the Complaints Committee shall not be
treated as a mere preliminary investigation or inquiry
leading to a disciplinary action but shall be treated as a
finding/report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the
delinquent.
44.2. The States and Union Territories which have not
carried out amendments in the Industrial Employment
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
12 WA-552-2025
(Standing Orders) Rules shall now carry out
amendments on the same lines, as noted above in para
44.1 within two months.
44.3. The States and Union Territories shall form
adequate number of Complaints Committees so as to
ensure that they function at taluka level, district level
and State level. Those States and/or Union Territories
which have formed only one committee for the entire
State shall now form adequate number of Complaints
Committees within two months from today. Each of
such Complaints Committees shall be headed by a
woman and as far as possible in such committees an
independent member shall be associated.
44.4. The State functionaries and private and public
sector undertakings/organisations/bodies/institutions,
etc. shall put in place sufficient mechanism to ensure
full implementation of Vishaka,[Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 932]
guidelines and further provide that if the alleged
harasser is found guilty, the complainant victim is
not forced to work with/under such harasser and where
appropriate and possible the alleged harasser should be
transferred. Further provision should be made that
harassment and intimidation of witnesses and the
complainants shall be met with severe disciplinary
action.
44.5. The Bar Council of India shall ensure that all
Bar Associations in the country and persons registered
with the State Bar Councils follow Vishaka [Vishaka v.
State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri)
932] guidelines. Similarly, the Medical Council of
India, Council of Architecture, Institute of Chartered
Accountants, Institute of Company Secretaries and
other statutory institutes shall ensure that he
organisations, bodies, associations, institutions
and persons registered/affiliated with them follow the
guidelines laid down by Vishaka [Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 932] .
To achieve this, necessary instructions/circulars shall be
issued by all the statutory bodies such as the Bar
Council of India, Medical Council of India, Council of
Architecture, Institute of Company Secretaries within
two months from today. On receipt of any complaint
of sexual harassment at any of the places referred to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
13 WA-552-2025
above the same shall be dealt with by the statutory
bodies in accordance with Vishaka [Vishaka v. State of
Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 932]
guidelines and the guidelines in the present order."
20. In view of the observation made by the Supreme Court, especially
in para 44.1 that the report of the Complaints Committee shall be deemed to
be an enquiry report in a disciplinary action under such Civil
Services Conduct Rules. The disciplinary authority shall treat the
report/findings of the Complaints Committee as the findings in a disciplinary
enquiry against the delinquent employee and shall act on such
report accordingly. It is also observed therein that the findings and the
report of the Complaints Committee shall not be treated to be a
mere preliminary investigation or enquiry leading to a disciplinary action
but shall be treated as a finding/report in an enquiry into the misconduct
of the delinquent.
21. The Kerala High Court in case of AIR India Limited and
others Vs. L.S. Sibu and others reported in 2018 SCC Online Kerala
13878 has observed as under:-
The learned Single Judge found, according to us rightly,
that the procedure as laid down by the office
memorandum is in contravention of the statute and
hence cannot be held to be valid. Looking at the Act and
the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, the learned Single Judge found that
the enquiry conducted under Section 11 of the Act is a
full-fledged enquiry, leading to a finding of guilt or
otherwise of the delinquent against whom charge of
sexual harassment is made. The learned Single Judge
also referred to Medha Kotwal Lele v.Union of India,
(2013) 1 SCC 312.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
14 WA-552-2025
6. We are surprised that even then the Air India, a
public sector undertaking, sought to file an appeal again
relying on the office memorandum and seeking to
justify the procedure adopted by them of a preliminary
enquiry conducted behind the back of the delinquent
employee. We need only refer to Medha Kotwal
Lele and the directions issued therein, after hearing the
learned Attorney General for Union of India, which
reads thus:--
"2 Notice had been issued to several parties including
the Governments concerned and on getting appropriate
responses from them and now after hearing the learned
Attorney General for UOI and the learned counsel, we
direct as follows:
"Complaints Committee as envisaged by the Supreme
Court in its judgment in Vishaka case, (1997) 6 SCC
241: 1997 SCC (Cri) 932, at p.253, will be deemed to
be an inquiry authority for the purposes of the Central
Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called
the CCS Rules) and the report of the Complaints
Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry
report under the CCS Rules. Thereafter the disciplinary
authority will " act on the report in accordance with the
Rules."
7. It was also directed that similar amendments be
carried out in the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Rules. In the teeth of the specific directions
issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section
141, there is no scope for the office memorandum or the
procedure brought therein to survive.
8. Hence, going by the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the enquiry conducted by the ICC
should be a full-fledged enquiry complying with the
principles of natural justice. However, we endorse the
findings of the learned Single Judge, insofar as. the
cross-examination of the complainant, which has to be
done 'after an assessment of their mental state and
also adopting such measures as would not put the
complainant to further jeopardy, providing an amicable
atmosphere which would put the victim at ease and
capable of freely deposing without fear and being
subjected to any further harassment. At the same
time, it has to be ensured that the delinquent employee
is afforded a proper opportunity to elicit answers in his
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
15 WA-552-2025
defence. The ICC could arrange the chief and cross-
examinations being carried out through electronic
systems, without the victim having to face the alleged
aggressor. As of now, we are of the opinion that
the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in
having set aside the report, which was prepared without
following a fair procedure. The Committee will have to
comply with the impugned judgment, and proceed with
the enquiry as contemplated under the Act and conclude
it either way.
9. In this context, we also have to notice the submission
made by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the 1st
respondent, about 9. In this context, we also have to
notice the submission made by the learned Senior
Counsel on behalf of the 1st respondent, about the
subsequent events, which according to the first
respondent belies the factum of the complaint said to
have been raised by 17 female employees of AI-SATS.
It is the specific submission that the complaints were
found to be forged, in an investigation conducted on the
basis of'a private complaint lodged by the Ist
respondent. The Ist respondent has specifically alleged
that the complaints were on the instigation of the Vice-
President of AISATS, who. was in inimical terms with
the Ist respondent for reason of certain activities of AI-
SATS having been brought to the notice of the Air India
as also the C.B.I. and Central Vigilance Commissioner.
There is a criminal complaint filed against the said
Vice-President, who is no more in the service of the AI-
SATS, wherein the police had, after investigation,
removed the said person from the array of accused.
Original Petition is filed as O.P. (Crl) No. 193/2018
against the removal of the Ist respondent from the FIR.
It is submitted that there are contradictory statements
filed in the said Original Petition by the investigating
officer and it would indicate that the entire allegations
are cooked up and are at the instigation of the higher-
ups in AI-SATS. 10. We need not go into all these
allegations at this stage, since we are only concerned
with the proceedings taken by the ICC on the
complaints levelled by 17 female employees of AI-
SATS. We need just notice that only one complainant
turned up before the ICC as per Annexure R1(a) report;
but who looked visibly upset and could depose only
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
16 WA-552-2025
after sustained pacification. The fact that only one
complainant tured up is inconsequential as the
graveness of the charge of sexual harassment even if
against one individual has to be treated with all
seriousness. Then there is a reservatiog_on the part of
the victims to face the rigour of a legal proceeding,
even when carried out in-house; which also cannot be
discounted. However, we cannot also ignore the fact
that considerable time has elapsed and there are reports
that many of the said female employees deny having
made such a complaint. Taking all the circumstances
into consideration, we are of the opinion that the ICC
concerned should first summon the 17 female
employees and take individual statements from them, in
which proceedings the Ist respondent need not be
participated. If on such statements, there is an allegation
of sexual harassment, then appropriate notice shall be
issued to the Ist respondent and a full-fledged enquiry
conducted under Section 11 and further proceedings
taken under Section 13 in accordance with the
directions in Medha Kotwal Lele after issuing a charge
sheet. At the enquiry, the victim need not be directed to
again repeat the statement and could as well be asked to
swear to the statement already recorded and then the
delinquent permitted to cross examine, as per the
procedure delineated herein above."
22. As per the observation made by the Kerala High Court, the
enquiry conducted by the ICC should be a full-fledged enquiry complying
with the principles of natural justice. It is also observed by the Court that
the victim need not be directed to again repeat the statement and could
as well be asked to swear to the statement already recorded and then
the delinquent permitted to cross-examine, as per the procedure
delineated hereinabove. The Court has further observed that the ICC
should summon the female employees/complainants so as to take
their individual statement and if on such statements, there is an allegation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
17 WA-552-2025
of sexual harassment, then appropriate notice shall be issued to
the delinquent and full-fledged enquiry shall be conducted.
23. In the procedure adopted by the appellant in the present case and
even after directing the respondents to produce the order-sheets of enquiry,
they failed to show as to how and when opportunity was provided to the
petitioner to cross-examine the complainants. Even nothing is produced so as
to ascertain whether the statements of complainants were recorded during the
course of enquiry or not. As such, in absence of any statement of witnesses
or an opportunity to cross-examine them, the procedure adopted by the
appellants is unknown to law as rightly observed by the writ Court.
24. Now the question before this Court is that if the writ Court has
allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner, that too be
confined to 3 years of service tenure as per the offer/appointment order dated
24.02.2020 or upto the 5 years. It is not in dispute that after the
offer/appointment mentioned above, the writ petitioner joined on 22.12.2020.
Thus, 3 years from that date is upto 21.12.2023. It was the prerogative of the
employer whether to continue the writ petitioner or not. However,
meanwhile the suspension order dated 30.12.2022 was issued and thereafter,
the enquiry was conducted and he continued to face the enquiry. Finally the
termination order dated 29.02.2024 was passed. Thus, as per the joining
report dated 22.12.2020 he should have been continued upto 21.12.2023 but
he continued upto 29.02.2024. Thus, it was a deemed extension beyond
previous term. However, as per the offer/appointment letter dated 24.02.2020
the contract period cannot be beyond 5 years. Thus, so far as the relief
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:9849
18 WA-552-2025
granted to the petitioner is concerned, we hereby clarify that the same would
be limited to the period of 5 years from 22.12.2020 and not beyond that. This
will not preclude appellants for considering respondent No.1 for direct
regular recruitment as per law.
25. In view of above, we hereby dispose of the present appeal
maintaining the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.10021
of 2024. Finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) (VIVEK JAIN)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Prar
