# Prof. Anandh Subramaniam v. Union of India & Ors. 428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 427
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4492 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prof-anandh-subramaniam-v-union-of-india-ors-428-indian-law-reports-allahabad-53388
- **Pages:** 46

## Headnote

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
IIT Kanpur Statutes, Statute 13(9)(b) -
Misconduct by Professor - Allegations of
disparaging
remarks
against
a
colleague
belonging to SC category and convening of an
unauthorized
faculty
meeting
questioning
appointment - Inquiry held, charges found
proved - Board of Governors imposed penalty of
withholding two increments without cumulative
effect for two years and debarment from
holding administrative responsibilities for three
years - Validity.

Held: The charges established derogated from
discipline and constituted service misconduct;
penalty of withholding increments is permissible
under Statute 13(9)(b)(ii). However, debarment
from holding administrative responsibilities for a
period of three years is not one of the penalties
enumerated under Statute 13(9)(b). The said
punishment is beyond the authority of the IIT,
manifestly illegal, and stands quashed. Penalty
of
withholding
two
increments
without
cumulative effect sustained.

Writ Petition partly allowed.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,922 of 158,335. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39922 for what follows._

5 All. Prof.. Anandh Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
427
19.01.2016 and charge sheet has
been issued on 16.07.2024 i.e. after about
thirteen years from the alleged incident. The
aforesaid inordinate delay initiating the
departmental proceedings has been rejected
and disapproved by the Apex Court in re;
Bani Singh (supra) by observing vide para-4
that "there is no satisfactory explanation for
the inordinate delay in issuing the charge
memo and we are also of the view that it will
be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry
to be proceeded with at this stage." The
judgment of the Apex Court in re; Bani
Singh (supra) has consistently been followed
by the Apex Court and this Court in so may
cases. Since the departmental inquiry is
treated to have been initiated w.e.f. the date
the charge sheet is issued, so the inordinate
delay initiating the departmental inquiry in
the present case would vitiate the entire
purpose to conduct the departmental inquiry.

20. Therefore, in view of what has
been considered above including the case
laws so cited by the parties, it is crystal clear
that the departmental inquiry would be
treated to have been initiated from the date
when the charge sheet is issued to the
charged employee seeking defence reply. In
the present case, limitation of four years
under Regulation 351-A of CSR has not been
followed by the competent authority as the
departmental inquiry has been initiated on
16.07.2024 when the charge sheet has been
issued to the petitioner i.e. after about thirteen
years from the incident in question, which is
not permissible under the law. Not only the
above, the order to initiate the departmental
inquiry dated 19.01.2016 is also beyond the
period of four years from the date of alleged
incident which is of the year 2010-11,
therefore,
the
impugned
order
dated
19.01.2016 under challenge in Writ-A
No.4265 of 2024 and the charge sheet dated
16.07.2024 under challenge in Writ-A
No.6945 of 2024 are nullity in the eyes of
law, therefore, the same are liable to be set
aside/quashed.

21. Accordingly, both the writ
petitions are allowed. A writ in the nature of
certiorari is issued quashing the order dated
19.01.2016 and the charge sheet dated
16.07.2024.

22. A writ in the nature of
mandamus is issued directing the opposite
parties to pay all consequential service
benefits to the petitioner including arrears of
pension, all retiral dues, if the same has not
been paid as yet, with interest at the rate of
7% per annum from the date those dues
accrued till the date of actual payment
within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order,
failing which the petitioner shall be entitled
for the interest at the rate of 10% per annum
on the delayed payment.

23. No order as to costs.

Writ A No. 6945 of 2024

Allowed vide my order of date passed on
separate sheets in Writ A No. 4265 of
2024.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 427
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 4492 of 2023
Connected with Writ A No. 2273 of 2023

Prof. Anandh Subramaniam ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents
428 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Avneesh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Sri
Jatin Kumar Mishra, Sri Rohan Gupta, Sri
Manish Goyal (Sr. Advocate)

Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings -
IIT Kanpur Statutes, Statute 13(9)(b) -
Misconduct by Professor - Allegations of
disparaging
remarks
against
a
colleague
belonging to SC category and convening of an
unauthorized
faculty
meeting
questioning
appointment - Inquiry held, charges found
proved - Board of Governors imposed penalty of
withholding two increments without cumulative
effect for two years and debarment from
holding administrative responsibilities for three
years - Validity.

Held: The charges established derogated from
discipline and constituted service misconduct;
penalty of withholding increments is permissible
under Statute 13(9)(b)(ii). However, debarment
from holding administrative responsibilities for a
period of three years is not one of the penalties
enumerated under Statute 13(9)(b). The said
punishment is beyond the authority of the IIT,
manifestly illegal, and stands quashed. Penalty
of
withholding
two
increments
without
cumulative effect sustained.

Writ Petition partly allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This judgment will decide Writ-A
No.4492 of 2023 and connected Writ-A
No.2273 of 2023. Writ-A No.4492 of 2023
shall be treated as the leading case.
Nevertheless, facts and materials, wherever
necessary, shall also be noticed in the
connected writ petition.

2.
Anandh
Subramaniam,
a
Professor in the Department of Material
Science and Engineering at the Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur is a
respectable man, who has fallen from
grace. He has been proceeded with against
under the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short, 'the PoSH
Act'), held guilty on charges of sexual
harassment of a scholar of his and punished
with 'compulsory retirement' by the Board
of Governors of the Indian Institute of
Technology, Kanpur (for short, 'the IIT')
vide resolution dated 22.02.2023. The said
resolution was notified by the Director of
the IIT vide order dated 01.03.2023.

3. In the leading writ petition, the
petitioner challenges the order dated
01.03.2023 passed by the Director of the
IIT as also the resolution of the Board of
Governors of the said Institution dated
22.02.2023. He has further prayed, in
substance, through two reliefs, myriadly
worded, that the decision to retire him
compulsorily from service be not given
effect to in any manner whatsoever. The
connected writ petition was instituted by
the petitioner at a time when proceedings
under the PoSH Act had not reached a
terminus. The said petition, therefore,
impugns determinations interlocutory, but
still decisive like the inquiry report dated
30.09.2022 submitted by the Internal
Complaints Committee (for short, 'ICC') of
the IIT, the memorandum dated 01.11.2022
issued by the Director of the IIT, calling
upon
the
petitioner
to
submit
his
representation against the inquiry report
and the memorandum dated 22.12.2022,
also issued by the Board of Governors of
the IIT, requiring the petitioner to show
cause against the proposed punishment of
compulsory retirement from service. There
is a more profound challenge by the
petitioner in this petition and that is to the
validity
of
the
Indian
Institute
of
Technology
Kanpur
(Inquiry
into
5 All. Prof.. Anandh Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
429
Complaints of Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace) Rules, 2021 (for
short, 'the IITK Rules'), questioning the
said Rules as ultra vires the PoSH Act. It is
this challenge to the validity of the IITK
Rules that has kept the connected writ
petition vibrant and alive, even if one were
to regard the other interlocutory orders/
determinations
merged
in
the
final
resolution/ orders of compulsory retirement
passed against the petitioner.

4. The complainant in this case
against the petitioner is a Ph.D. scholar of
the IIT, whose research the petitioner was
guiding. Proceedings under the PoSH Act
commenced on a complaint laid against the
petitioner by the Ph.D. scholar under
reference, who has been impleaded as
respondent No.7 to the writ petition,
anonymously described as 'complainant to
be served through the Director, Indian
Institute of Technology, Kanpur'. This
complaint, which is one dated 24.06.2022,
was submitted by the complainant to the
Presiding Officer, ICC, constituted for the
IIT under the PoSH Act. The petitioner, as
he
says,
received
an
email
dated
30.06.2022 from the Presiding Officer of
the ICC, comprising a copy of the
complaint dated 24.06.2022 and a notice
dated 30.06.2022, requiring him to appear
before the ICC on 15.07.2022.

5. It is the petitioner's case that the
notice did not indicate the rule or statute, in
terms of which it was issued, and this led
the petitioner to address a letter dated
06.07.2022 to the Presiding Officer of the
ICC. In response, the Presiding Officer of
the ICC issued summons to the petitioner
dated 12.07.2022, inter alia, indicating the
authority of the ICC to act in the matter
against him. It was indicated in the
summons that the notice dated 30.06.2022
had been issued under Rule 18 of the IITK
Rules. It was further said in the summons
that the petitioner was called upon to
appear before the ICC at 16:00 hours on
15.07.2022 at a venue described as 'FB212'
in person along with his reply, if any, to the
complaint. The petitioner appeared before
the ICC on 15.07.2022 and put in a reply of
two short paragraphs: in the first, he
acknowledged the summons, and in the
second, he denied the allegations in the
complaint. He said that the complaint was
false and motivated.

6. The ICC commenced an inquiry
into the complaint on 15.07.2022. The
petitioner says that during the hearing held
on 15.07.2022, he requested the ICC, by a
letter of that day, to permit him to appoint a
legally trained person to defend him, as one
of the members on the ICC was an
Advocate. It is the petitioner's case that
during the hearing, he was informed that he
is not allowed to consult on any matter
relating to the complaint. It is also said that
the complainant was asked to sit in a
different room and questions could be
asked of her in writing. According to the
petitioner, upon conclusion of the hearing
on 15.07.2022, the ICC declined to provide
a copy of the daily order-sheet on the
pretext that it was a confidential document.
Immediately after the conclusion of the
hearing as aforesaid, the petitioner sent a
letter to the ICC, bringing on record the
illegalities in the proceedings. He says that
on the same day, to wit, 15.07.2022, the
petitioner received a reply from the
Director of the IIT, informing him that the
inquiry will be done in accordance with the
IITK Rules, inasmuch as the IIT was not
governed by the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1965 (for short, 'the CCS Rules'). This
reply of the Director came in response to
430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner's letter dated 15.07.2022,
already mentioned, where a clarification
was sought by him in the following terms:

"4) It is requested to clarify
urgently whether,-

(a) A punishment will straight
away be imposed under the newly notified
IITK ICSH Rules on an employee against
whom the inquiry is held by ICC under the
newly
notified
Indian
Institute
of
Technology
Kanpur
(Inquiry
into
Complaints of Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace) Rules, 2021

OR
 (b) After the inquiry by the ICC,
the report of ICC will be placed before the
Disciplinary Authority for considering and
deciding under rule 14(2) of CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 whether there are grounds for
inquiring into the truth of any imputation of
misconduct or misbehaviour against the
employee and, if the Disciplinary Authority
decides that an inquiry is required, to hold
the inquiry into the imputations of
misconduct or misbehaviour in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Rule 14 of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965."

7. The petitioner asserts that the
statutes of the IIT are silent as regards the
manner in which a domestic inquiry is to be
conducted against an employee or teacher,
and, therefore, it is Rule 14 of the CCS
Rules that would apply. It is also his case
that in cases of misconduct against
employees of the IIT, domestic inquiries
have always been conducted in accordance
with the CCS Rules, and this course of
action has been upheld by Courts. The
petitioner particularly pleads that in view of
the proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 of
the CCS Rules, the procedure for holding
an inquiry into complaints of sexual
harassment is provided. Therefore, there
was absolutely no occasion or need for the
IIT to frame the IITK Rules to conduct an
inquiry under the PoSH Act. If the IIT still
wished to frame their own rules for holding
inquiries
into
complaints
of
sexual
harassment, it was incumbent to frame
rules that provided for the manner in which
an inquiry would be held, instead of merely
providing what Rule 30 says in vague
terms, to wit, 'the inquiry into the
complaint shall be made by the Committee
in accordance with the principles of
natural justice'.

8. On 16.07.2022, the petitioner
received an email from the Presiding
Officer of the ICC, enclosing a list of
witnesses provided by the complainant at
the time of filing the complaint. It was said
that this list could not be attached to the
complaint at the time when a copy thereof
was sent to the petitioner on 30.06.2022
due to oversight. The petitioner was asked
to submit his detailed reply in six copies
along with a list of witnesses and
documentary evidence that he may seek to
rely upon, on the next scheduled date of
hearing set down for the 18th of July at
4:00 p.m. The petitioner addressed a letter
dated 18.07.2022 to the Director of the IIT,
saying that the complaint against him be
placed before the Disciplinary Authority in
the first instance in order to enable that
Authority to form an opinion on the
complaint and to order an inquiry, if
warranted, in the manner envisaged under
Rule 14 of the CCS Rules. The petitioner
said in his letter that if an inquiry was
found fit to be held by the Disciplinary
Authority, a proper charge-sheet in the
prescribed format had to be issued to the
petitioner to enable him to defend properly.
This request of the petitioner was also
rejected by the Director promptly on the
same day, to wit, the 18th of July, 2022.
5 All. Prof.. Anandh Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
431
9. Regular hearing before the ICC
commenced on 27.07.2022, where the
petitioner
alleges
breach
of
such
fundamental procedures, which, according
to him, violated natural justice and resulted
in grave prejudice to his case. According to
the petitioner, he was asked to crossexamine
the
complainant,
who
had
appeared as her own witness as CW-1,
without recording her examination-in-chief.
The ICC disallowed a large number of
questions that the petitioner asked of the
complainant
as
part
of
the
crossexamination. He says that the ICC itself
answered for the complainant, completing
and improving upon her answers to several
questions. The ICC did not ensure that the
complainant
answered
some
of
the
questions that had been allowed to be put to
her. The ICC also readily accepted
additional documents and a list of new
witnesses given by the complainant on
27.07.2022, that were never cited along
with the complaint, without asking her the
reason for not submitting these documents
or citing witnesses before commencement
of the inquiry. There is also this case by the
petitioner that the ICC carried out a raid on
the lab, where the petitioner worked and
did an illegal search and seizure on three
dates, to wit, 08.08.2022, 10.08.2022 and
05.09.2022 in order to help the complainant
produce a document. Proceedings were
held ex parte, denying opportunity to the
petitioner, when he could not attend due to
compelling circumstances.

10. It is also said that the petitioner
was denied the opportunity to examine one
of the complainant's witnesses, namely,
CW-3. The ICC is blamed by the petitioner
of asking the complainant's witnesses
before, during and after their crossexamination
numerous
questions,
purporting to seek clarifications, but in fact,
reconciling
discrepancies
in
their
depositions and bringing up additional
materials and allegations against the
petitioner, as he chooses to describe it. It is
also pleaded by the petitioner that on
01.08.2022, after the testimony of CW-1
was over, the ICC directed the petitioner to
submit his deposition for cross-examination
on 04.08.2022. He says that this was the
most anomalous procedure to adopt,
because the stage for the petitioner's
deposition had not yet reached, the
complainant's case having just begun. It is
also said that after the commencement of
regular hearing on 28.07.2022, copies of
the daily order-sheet and depositions of
witnesses were not supplied to the
petitioner. After repeat requests, the ICC
supplied a copy each of the daily ordersheet dated 05.08.2022 and the deposition
recorded on that date, but copies of ordersheets of previous days and depositions
recorded were not supplied. Those were
supplied on 16.08.2022, after an undue and
unconscionable delay of three weeks, as the
petitioner chooses to call it. Again, on one
of the dates of the scheduled hearing, that is
to say, 23.08.2022, the petitioner was
suddenly taken ill. He informed the ICC
about his illness and requested adjournment
by an email sent at 8.35 a.m. on
23.08.2022. The request for adjournment
was rejected and evidence heard ex parte
on 23.08.2022. The ICC went on further to
commence hearing the defence evidence in
the petitioner's absence on 23.08.2022 and
before closure of the complainant's case.

11. It is also the petitioner's case
that when he submitted the list of
documents required to be produced in his
defence, the ICC orally directed him to
indicate the relevance of each of those
documents. It is for the said reason that the
petitioner
submitted
a
letter
dated
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27.08.2022 to the ICC, indicating the
relevance of documents. The petitioner also
complains that the ICC failed and avoided
to summon documents that the petitioner
sought, despite repeated requests and
reminders.

12. The prayer was considered only
on the last date of hearing i.e. 14.09.2022
and on that day, the ICC declined to
summon 10 out of the 11 documents the
petitioner desired to produce. The inquiry
was then closed without production of the
solitary document that the ICC permitted
on the petitioner's behalf, crippling his
defence, as the petitioner says. It is then the
petitioner's case that of the 24 witnesses
who were produced on his behalf as RW-1
to RW-24, he was not permitted to lead
evidence. The ICC did not permit the
petitioner to do the examination-in-chief of
his witnesses. Instead, the ICC examined
all the 24 witnesses themselves, recording
those statements as their examination-inchief. The petitioner's witnesses were then
cross-examined,
not
only
by
the
complainant, but also the ICC. It is,
therefore, the petitioner's case that the ICC
proceeded in violation of principles of
natural justice, denying him a fair hearing,
and acted with bias and mala fides in the
conduct of the inquiry. They dealt with the
inquiry in an arbitrary fashion in order to
give undue advantage to the complainant
and utterly prejudiced the petitioner's
defence. There are many more details of
violations of the same genre, where the
petitioner calls natural justice a causality,
resulting in prejudice to him. These would
be noticed later in this judgment.

13. The petitioner has particularly
pleaded a case that the IIT had no
jurisdiction to frame the IITK Rules under
the PoSH Act in view of the provisions of
Section 11(1) thereof. According to the
petitioner, an inquiry into a complaint
under the PoSH Act can be made in
accordance with the provisions of the
service rules applicable to the employer,
and where no such rules have been framed,
it is to be done in the manner prescribed.
The 'manner prescribed' is defined under
Section 2(k) of the PoSH Act to mean
prescribed by rules made under the last
mentioned Act. The power to make rules
under the PoSH Act vests in the Central
Government, which is to be done by that
Government by a notification in the official
gazette. The Central Government has made
rules under the PoSH Act, in exercise of
their powers under Section 29, that is to
say, the Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Rules, 2013 (for short, 'the
PoSH Rules'). Therefore, inquiry into a
complaint under the PoSH Act can either
be held according to the service rules
applicable to the employer's establishment,
and where no such rules exist, in
accordance with the PoSH Rules. There is
no jurisdiction with the employer to frame
rules under the PoSH Act to hold an
inquiry into a complaint under the said
statute. It is, therefore, urged on behalf of
the petitioner that the inquiry held in the
petitioner's case in accordance with the
IITK Rules, which have been made by the
IIT under the PoSH Act, is ultra vires the
Act
last
mentioned,
rendering
the
proceedings void.

14. The petitioner submitted his
written brief of defence on 26.09.2022. The
petitioner
received
a
memo
dated
01.11.2022, with the Director of the IIT
forwarding a copy of the ICC's report dated
30.09.2022. The petitioner was directed to
submit his representation against the said
report, if any, by 16.11.2022. The petitioner
5 All. Prof.. Anandh Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
433
submitted a detailed representation dated
16.11.2022 against the report of the ICC,
followed
by
a
further
letter
dated
30.11.2022. He then received a memo
dated 22.12.2022 from the Director of the
IIT, saying that the Board of Governors of
the IIT in their 251st Meeting held on
11.12.2022, had carefully considered the
inquiry
report
and
the
petitioner's
representations
dated
04.11.2022,
08.11.2022 and 16.11.2022, along with
another representation dated 30.11.2022,
and after due deliberations, unanimously
decided to reject the representations and
accept the inquiry report submitted by the
ICC.

15. It was also noticed in the memo
dated 22.12.2022 that the petitioner had
earlier been held guilty of sexually
harassing another student working under
his supervision, where the Board of
Governors, in their 242nd Meeting held on
03.09.2021, had resolved to impose the
penalty of withholding increments with
cumulative effect for three years and that the
said order of punishment was still in force.
The memo under reference went on to say
that considering the petitioner's previous
misconduct as well as the one now arising,
the Board, after extensive deliberations, had
come to the conclusion that he was not a fit
person to be retained in service of the IIT.
The Board had, therefore, proposed to award
the penalty of compulsory retirement in terms
of Statute 13(9)(b)(b)(v) of the Statutes of the
IIT. The Board had, accordingly, directed the
issue of a show cause notice to the petitioner,
seeking
his
clarification/
representation
within 15 days as to why the penalty
proposed be not awarded. The matter was
directed to come up before the Board for a
final decision along with the petitioner's
representation, if any. The petitioner was,
therefore,
called
upon
to
submit
a
representation against the penalty proposed to
be awarded to him.

16. The petitioner instituted Writ-A
No.121 of 2023, challenging the inquiry report
dated 30.09.2022, the resolution of the Board of
Governors of the IIT dated 27.10.2022, the
memorandum dated 01.11.2022, the resolution
of the Board of Governors dated 11.12.2022
and the memorandum dated 22.12.2022. The
aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on
01.02.2023. The petitioner then submitted
representations, numbering four, against the
memorandum dated 22.12.2022, issuing him a
show cause notice against the proposed penalty.
These four representations were dated 4th, 5th,
6th and 7th January, 2023. In addition to these
representations against the show cause dated
22.12.2022, the petitioner lodged an appeal
under Rule 45 of the IITK Rules on 29.01.2023,
challenging the inquiry report dated 30.09.2022
submitted by the ICC. In this appeal, the report
was questioned on jurisdictional errors as well
as the merits of the findings.

17. The Board of Governors, by
their resolution dated 22.02.2023, which is
quite eloquent, rejected the petitioner's
appeal under Rule 45 in the first part, and
in the second, his representations - all four
against the show cause notice dated
22.12.2022, and punished the petitioner
with an order for compulsory retirement
from service. In accordance with the
resolution of the Board of Governors dated
22.02.2023, the Director of the IIT issued
an office order dated 01.03.2023, formally
notifying the decision of the Board,
punishing the petitioner with compulsory
retirement, with effect from the date of the
Director's order.

18. Aggrieved by the resolution of
the Board of Governors of the IIT dated
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
22.02.2023 and the order of the Director,
notifying it dated 01.03.2023, the petitioner
has instituted the present petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution.

19. A counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6,
and another, on behalf of respondent No.7.
A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner
in reply to the counter on behalf of
respondent Nos.2 to 6 and one separately to
the
counter
affidavit
on
behalf
of
respondent No.7. In addition, there are
supplementary counter affidavits dated
09.11.2023, 22.11.2023 and 28.07.2024, all
filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6.

20. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 6, it is
pleaded that the PoSH Rules have been
approved by the Board of Governors of the
IIT in exercise of their powers under
Section
13(1)
of
the
Institutes
of
Technology Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act
of 1961'). These Rules were necessitated in
view of the provisions of Section 11(1) of
the PoSH Act. The CCS Rules, according
to the respondents, are not applicable to the
IIT, nor is there any provision under the
Act of 1961 or the Statutes of the IIT,
providing for the procedure and the manner
of holding an inquiry into a complaint of
sexual
harassment.
There
are
then
pleadings to show that natural justice has
been
adhered
to
at
various
stages,
consistent with the IITK Rules and the
sensitive nature of the inquiry, where the
rights of a woman, complaining of sexual
harassment,
were
involved.
It
is
emphasized that the procedure to hold an
inquiry under the IITK Rules is flexible. It
has been pleaded that the petitioner, by
raising technical objections, wanted to
procrastinate proceedings and violate the
time limit of 90 days to complete an
inquiry mandated by Section 11(4) of the
PoSH Act.

21. The allegations of bias against
the ICC have also been repelled, saying
that it was a multi-membered body,
drawing
its
members
from
different
departments. The petitioner's conduct was
found
blameworthy
and
his
defence
unsubstantiated by the ICC upon a
consideration of evidence. The findings of
the ICC, after due opportunity to the
petitioner, have been accepted by the Board
of Governors of the IIT. The question of
quantum of punishment to be meted out to
the petitioner too was carefully considered
by the Board of Governors before the
impugned order was passed.

22. The petitioner's appeal under
Rule 45 of the IITK Rules was duly
considered
and
disposed
of.
It
is
highlighted that an appeal from the findings
of the ICC to the Disciplinary Authority,
that is to say, the Board of Governors, is a
unique feature of the IITK Rules with no
pari materia provisions in the PoSH Rules
framed under the PoSH Act or the CCS
Rules. The petitioner, therefore, had all
protection in the matter of defending
himself under the PoSH Rules, which he
availed. It had been pleaded more than
once that the CCS Rules do not apply to the
IIT at all and the Board of Governors of the
IIT are empowered under Section 13(1) of
the Act of 1961 to make rules for proper
and smooth functioning of the institution.

23. It must be recorded here that
from a clarification matter arising out of
Writ-A No.4878 of 2021, which pertains to
an earlier proceeding against the petitioner
with regard to sexual harassment, an order
dated 25.04.2023 was passed by the learned
Single Judge, post judgment. The order of
5 All. Prof.. Anandh Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
435
the learned Single Judge dated 25.05.2023,
passed on the clarification application in
the writ petition aforesaid, was challenged
in Special Appeal No.338 of 2023, where
the Division Bench set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge. The
petitioner moved the Supreme Court by a
petition for Special Leave to Appeal
No.14058
of
2023,
wherein,
their
Lordships issued notice and ordered that
until the next date of hearing, the petitioner
shall not be evicted from the residential
premises in his occupation. Later on, while
hearing Special Leave Petition No.14058 of
2023, the following order was passed by
the Supreme Court on 11.09.2023:

"After hearing learned counsel
for the parties, we find that the interim
order dated 25.04.2023 passed in Writ
Application No. 4878 of 2021 was
challenged in Special Appeal No. 338 of
2023 wherein the impugned order dated
25.05.2023 has been passed allowing the
said appeal. The Division Bench set aside
the order dated 25.04.2023 of learned
Single Judge passed on Modification
Application - I.A.No. 7 of 2023.

During hearing, it is conceded
before us that the present Special Leave
Petition is arising out of an interim
proceedings, however, maintaining the
interim order passed by this Court on
10.07.2023, the Writ Court may be
requested to decide the Writ Petition No.
4492
of
2023
on
its
own
merits,
uninfluenced by the observations made in
the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 and
the order passed by the learned Single
Judge on 25.04.2023.

We
find
substance
in
the
submissions jointly made by the parties.
Accordingly, we defer hearing of this
Special Leave Petition and request the High
Court to decide the Writ Petition No. 4492
of 2023 as expeditiously as possible,
uninfluenced by the observations made in
the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 and
the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by the
learned Single judge. We further request
the High Court to decide the said Writ
Petition within a period of three months
from the date of production of a copy of
this order as far as possible.

Re-list this Special Leave Petition
in the month of February, 2024."

24. This Court must notice that so
far as this petition is concerned, the
proceedings of the present matter have
been expedited by the Supreme Court with
the clarification that we would not take into
account the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench in
Writ-A No.4878 of 2021 and Special
Appeal No.338 of 2023, respectively. We
have, therefore, proceeded accordingly in
this matter.

25. Heard Mr. Avneesh Tripathi,
learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Manish Goyal, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Rohan Gupta, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
Nos. 2 to 6 and Mr. Ashok Kumar
Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for
respondent No. 7.

26. This Court must remark that the
hearing in this matter ran into minute
details and most of the time, learned
Counsel for both sides attempted to charm
this Court into entering the arena of
appreciating the evidence of parties for and
against the charge dealt with by the ICC
and the Disciplinary Authority. Bearing in
mind our limitations in a writ petition, we
cannot arrogate to ourselves the powers of
a first appellate Court, as if it were.
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27. Broadly, there are two issues,
amongst the many vociferously canvassed
before
us,
that
can
legitimately
be
examined in the present writ petition. The
first is: Whether the IIT was empowered to
frame the IITK Rules under the PoSH Act?
A corollary of this issue is: If the IIT did
not have powers under the PoSH Act to
make Rules, would the resultant inquiry
under those rules be vitiated? The other
substantial issue is: Whether the inquiry
held was one in breach of principles of
natural justice and the salutary procedure to
hold an inquiry into misconduct involving
the imposition of a major penalty?

28. So far as the first issue is
concerned, there is little doubt that the
inquiry here is one under the PoSH Act.
Section 11 of the PoSH Act reads:

"11. Inquiry into complaint.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 10,
the Internal Committee or the Local
Committee, as the case may be, shall,
where the respondent is an employee,
proceed to make inquiry into the complaint
in accordance with the provisions of the
service rules applicable to the respondent
and where no such rules exist, in such
manner as may be prescribed or in case of a
domestic worker, the Local Committee
shall, if prima facie case exist, forward the
complaint to the police, within a period of
seven days for registering the case under
Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), and any other relevant provisions
of the said Code where applicable:

Provided
that
where
the
aggrieved woman informs the Internal
Committee or the Local Committee, as the
case may be, that any term or condition of
the settlement arrived at under sub-section
(2) of Section 10 has not been complied
with by the respondent, the Internal
Committee or the Local Committee shall
proceed to make an inquiry into the
complaint or, as the case may be, forward
the complaint to the police:

Provided further that where both
the parties are employees, the parties shall,
during the course of inquiry, be given an
opportunity of being heard and a copy of
the findings shall be made available to both
the
parties
enabling
them
to
make
representation against the findings before
the Committee.

 (2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in Section 509 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), the court may,
when the respondent is convicted of the
offence, order payment of such sums as it
may consider appropriate, to the aggrieved
woman by the respondent, having regard to
the provisions of Section 15.

(3) For the purpose of making an
inquiry under sub-section (1), the Internal
Committee or the Local Committee, as the
case may be, shall have the same powers as
are vested in a civil court under the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when
trying a suit in respect of the following
matters, namely-
 (a) summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining
him on oath;

(b) requiring the discovery and
production of documents; and

(c) any other matter which may
be prescribed.

(4) The inquiry under sub-section
(1) shall be completed within a period of
ninety days."

29. Section 11 (1) is relevant to the
first issue. A bare reading of the statute
would show that an ICC, where the
respondent (delinquent) is an employee, is
obliged to inquire into the complaint in
accordance
with
the
service
rules
5 All. Prof.. Anandh Subramaniam Vs. Union of India & Ors.
437
applicable to the employer's establishment
and in the contingency, where no such rules
exist, the Internal Committee must proceed
in such manner as prescribed. Section 2(k)
defines "prescribed'" in the following
terms:

"2. Definitions.-In this Act,
unless the context otherwise requires,-

(k)
"prescribed"
means
prescribed by rules made under this Act;"

30. The power to make rules under
the PoSH Act is provided under Section 29
thereof. Section 29 of the PoSH Act reads:

"29.
Power
of
appropriate
Government to make rules.-(1) The
Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, make rules for
carrying out the provisions of this Act.
 (2) In particular and without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
power, such rules may provide for all or
any of the following matters, namely-

(a) the fees or allowances to be
paid to the Members under sub-section (4)
of Section 4;

(b) nomination of members under
clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 7;

(c) the fees or allowances to be
paid to the Chairperson, and Members
under sub-section (4) of Section 7;

(d) the person who may make
complaint under sub-section (2) of Section
9;

(e) the manner of inquiry under
sub-section (1) of Section 11;

(f) the powers for making inquiry
under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of
Section 11;

(g) the relief to be recommended
under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of
Section 12;

(h) the manner of action to be
taken under clause (i) of sub-section (3) of
Section 13;

(i) the manner of action to be
taken under sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 14;

(j) the manner of action to be
taken under Section 17;
 (k) the manner of appeal under
sub-section (1) of Section 18;

(l) the manner of organising
workshops, awareness programmes for
sensitising the employees and orientation
programmes for the members of the
Internal Committee under clause (c) of
Section 19; and

(m) the form and time for
preparation of annual report by Internal
Committee and the Local Committee under
sub-section (1) of Section 21.

(3) Every rule made by the
Central Government under this Act shall be
laid as soon as may be after it is made,
before each House of Parliament, while it is
in session, for a total period of thirty days
which may be comprised in one session or
in two or more successive sessions, and if,
before
the
expiry
of
the
session
immediately following the session or the
successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses
agree in making any modification in the
rule or both Houses agree that the rule
should not be made, the rule shall thereafter
have effect only in such modified form or
be of no effect, as the case may be; so,
however, that any such modification or
annulment shall be without prejudice to the
validity of anything previously done under
that rule.

(4) Any rule made under subsection (4) of Section 8 by the State
Government shall be laid, as soon as may
be after it is made, before each House of
the State Legislature where it consists of
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
two Houses, or where such Legislature
consists of one House, before that House."

31.
The
submission
of
the
petitioner on the applicability of the IITK
Rules is firstly premised on ground that
there are service rules applicable to the
respondent's establishment and these are
the CCS Rules. The learned Counsel for the
respondent IIT, on the other hand, has
urged that the CCS Rules do not apply to
the IIT, inasmuch as the IIT is governed by
the Act of 1961, the Statutes framed
thereunder,
besides
the
rules
and
regulations
made
by
the
Statutory
Authorities of the IIT. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner, during the course of his
submissions, said that a number of inquiries
under the PoSH Act, that were held earlier
against various employees, were conducted
according to the provisions of the CCS
Rules. It is pointed out by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that an earlier
inquiry under the PoSH Act held against
the petitioner was undertaken in accordance
with the CCS Rules. It is urged that these
apply because no service rules, governing
the holding of disciplinary proceedings,
have been framed by the IIT.

32. The further submission is that
since the CCS Rules would apply to the
holding of an inquiry under the PoSH Act,
the formality of procedure under Rule 14 of
those Rules has to be observed. It is also
emphasized that under the CCS Rules, a
charge-sheet has to be issued, reducing the
allegations against a delinquent into a
definitive Article of charges, along with the
imputations of misconduct. The list of
documents and witnesses in support of each
charge too has to be supplied to the
delinquent. In this case, nothing of this kind
has been done and the allegations in the
complaint, which are interlapping and
vague, have been determined by the ICC
following a procedure not authorized by the
law. It has resulted in prejudice to the
petitioner as well. So far as this part of the
petitioner's submission is concerned, we
are afraid that it cannot be accepted.