Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The Petitioner in the present proceedings is working in the capacity of a Professor in the department of the Humanities and Social Sciences in the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay ("IIT Bombay"). The Respondent No.4 is the original complainant who preferred a complaint alleging misconduct against the Petitioner.

4. These proceedings confront us with an interesting issue as to whether the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the Petitioner pursuant to the inquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the POSH Act and Rules would necessarily entail a separate inquiry, with reference to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and its applicability in the given factual matrix. This is to be contextually tested when there is a specific mechanism and procedure prescribed for taking action qua misconduct viz. sexual harassment at workplace, contemplated under the aegis of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("POSH Act" for short), POSH Rules, dovetailed with provisions under special statutes such as the 3 WP-3224-2024.doc Indian Institute of Technology Act, (IIT Act) IIT Bombay Policy/Attendant Rules. Considering the reliefs sought and the arguments advanced we are not, at this stage, delving in to the merits of the allegations against the Petitioner.

23. Mr. Ramamurthy would submit that Policy on the Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual harassment in the workplace with its attendant Rules and procedure ("IIT Bombay Policy/Attendant Rules" for short) will not have the effect of overriding statutory rules i.e. CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or the statute of IIT, Bombay. The Policy is only in the nature of executive instructions which cannot override the statutory rules as 7 WP-3224-2024.doc above framed by the Government India. Therefore, in view of the decision taken by the IIT council on 6 October 1964, since the procedure for conducting inquiry for imposing penalty is not stipulated in the statute of IIT, Bombay, the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 would apply to IIT, Bombay for imposing penalty.

31. Mr. Ramamurthy would finally pray that the Petition be allowed and the Rule be made absolute.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:-

32. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, has categorically controverted the submissions advanced by Mr. Ramamurthy. During the course of his arguments, he referred to the Affidavit-in-Reply filed on behalf of the said Respondents dated 16 August 2024 by one Ganesh Kisanrao Bhorkade, Registrar, IIT Bombay. Mr. Mishra submitted that the present petition is not maintainable in view of the alternate remedy of Appeal available under Rule 11 of the IIT Bombay Policy read with Section 18 of the POSH Act, which provides an equally efficacious remedy. The sub-statute 10, 11 and 12 of Statute 13 (Terms and conditions of service of permanent employees) of the IIT Bombay Statutes also provides for a statutory Appeal to the Visitor against the orders passed by the Respondent No. 1-Disciplinary Authority. The Petitioner ought to have exhausted the said remedy before approaching 11 WP-3224-2024.doc this Court. Therefore, according to him, the petition ought not to be entertained on this ground alone.

60. We have duly noted the reliance placed by Mr. Ramamurthy on the decision in Dr. Vijaykumaran C. P. (supra). A careful perusal of paragraph 12 on which Mr. Ramamurthy placed emphasis would indicate that the Supreme Court has held that it may not be advisable to confer the benefit on such employee by merely passing an order of termination. To take such 27 WP-3224-2024.doc complaints to its logical conclusion, the Supreme Court has referred to initiating a departmental inquiry or regular inquiry as per Service Rules which ought to be followed by other actions as the law would mandate. However, in the given case, we are confronted with a situation, where even as per the Petitioner, there are no specific Rules under the statutes of IIT which refer to the procedure under the CCS Rules, for conducting an inquiry to impose major penalty. In such situation, one ought to take recourse to and be guided by Section 13(3)(i) of the POSH Act which refers to an action for sexual harassment as a misconduct to be taken in such manner as may be prescribed. In our view, the procedure in the manner prescribed is succinctly laid down in the IIT Bombay Policy/Attendant Rules to be read in sync with the IIT Act which cannot be departed from. Moreover, the IIT Bombay Policy/Attendant Rules are in conformity with the IIT Bombay Statutes.