Dilip Paul vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 15 May, 2019
In Tezpur University (supra), the petitioner, who was a Professor of Tezpur University,
had challenged an order removing him from the post of Professor, proceedings of the
departmental enquiry in connection thereof as well as the direction requiring him to leave the
university campus forthwith. Based on a complaint of a student, the Complaints Committee
on Sexual Harassment (CCSH), on the basis of an enquiry after examination of witnesses
including the complainant, the writ petitioner and others, had come to the conclusion that the
petitioner was guilty of committing sexual harassment to one lady student and, accordingly,
had made recommendation that the petitioner be terminated from service as per the
University Service Rules and guidelines. Based on the recommendation, a disciplinary
proceeding was initiated by issuing a Show Cause notice asking him to submit written
statement. Copies of the documents to be relied upon and the names of the witnesses to be
examined were also furnished to the petitioner. But the reply having not been found
satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed and, on completion of the enquiry, enquiry
report dated 11.09.2013 was submitted and, thereafter, the order dated 08.11.2013 was
issued. The learned Single Judge held that there was no material to lend support to the
conclusion arrived at by the CCSH. It was further observed that the respondent authorities
should have examined the report of the CCSH as to whether the findings recorded therein
constituted sufficient evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the charge and, instead of doing
so, treated the report of the CCSH as merely a preliminary investigation or enquiry and then
initiated a disciplinary proceeding. The learned Single Judge further observed that the
initiation of the disciplinary proceeding was a de novo enquiry and, even if it was considered
that the same was permissible, there were procedural improprieties and, accordingly, the writ
petition was allowed. The writ appellate court, in paragraph 22 of its judgement, observed
that the enquiry conducted by the CCSH was in the nature of a fact finding enquiry. It was
also observed that from the pleadings contained in the writ petition that the petitioner had
not assailed the report of the CCSH and that he had not also alleged that the said proceeding
was concluded by denying proper opportunity to defend his case. The Division Bench
Page No.# 21/33
concluded that the enquiry proceeding initiated through the Show Cause Notice dated
18.06.2013 had been conducted giving full procedural safeguard to the petitioner during the
enquiry proceeding and that the enquiry report dated 11.09.2013 was based on the evidence
on record.