Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed the Centre’s challenge and sustained the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision setting aside the termination of a probationary employee of the Indian Institute of Handloom Technology, Guwahati, who faced allegations of sexual harassment by female students. The Bench held that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, founded on an Internal Complaints Committee inquiry, stand vitiated where complainants are examined in the absence of the charged employee, denying a meaningful chance to contest their statements. While permitting a fresh inquiry, the court directed that the employee should not be reinstated or allowed to resume duties during the renewed proceedings, which must be completed within six months.

The dispute arose from disciplinary action taken against a probationary government employee appointed as a Workshop Foreman at a government institute. A complaint was submitted by a second-year female student alleging misconduct towards girl students. Following the complaint, the employee was placed under suspension and an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Also Read: Reserved Candidates Outscoring Open Cut-Off Eligible For Open Category Posts; Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals In Rajasthan High Court Recruitment Dispute

The Committee conducted multiple meetings and sought a written response from the employee. Based on its proceedings, the competent authority accepted the Committee’s recommendations and terminated the employee’s services while he was on probation, citing the seriousness of the allegations and perceived risk to students.

The employee challenged the termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal, contending that no charge memorandum was issued, no witnesses were examined in his presence, and no opportunity of cross-examination or defence was afforded. It was further contended that the inquiry report was not supplied prior to termination.

The Tribunal set aside the termination, holding that the inquiry did not comply with Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and principles of natural justice. The Union of India challenged this decision before the High Court.

The Court examined whether the inquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee satisfied the procedural safeguards under Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and principles of natural justice.

The Bench noted that “what needs to be seen whether ICC has followed wherever practicable the procedures contemplated in the said Rules.” It recorded that “copy of the complaint given by the 2nd year Girl student has not been handed over to the applicant and no opportunity, too, was given to him to present his defence, including cross-examination of witnesses.”

Referring to the inquiry proceedings, the Court observed that “eleven girl students were also examined by the Complaints Committee in the absence of the respondent” and that “the respondent was not given any notice to appear on the said date.”

The Court further recorded that although the respondent later appeared virtually before the Committee, “this report was not supplied to the respondent prior to the issuance of the Memorandum dated 25.03.2022 terminating his services.”

Relying extensively on the Supreme Court’s decision in Aureliano Fernandes, the Bench reproduced that “the procedure required to be adopted for conducting an inquiry into the complaint of sexual harassment that can lead to imposition of a major penalty under the Rules, must be fair, impartial and in line with the Rules.” It further noted that “the expression used in the proviso to Rule 14(2), ‘as far as practicable’ has to be read and understood in a pragmatic manner.”

Applying these principles, the Court stated that “the Complaints Committee did not afford a fair opportunity to the respondent to defend the allegations made against him.” It held that “the Inquiry Report was also not furnished to the respondent prior to the issuance of the Termination Order.”

The Bench therefore recorded that “the learned Tribunal rightly held that the case ought to be remitted back” for fresh proceedings consistent with natural justice.

The Court held that “the learned Tribunal rightly held that the case ought to be remitted back” and accordingly affirmed that the matter stands remitted to the Internal Complaints Committee and “the Committee is expected to deal with the matter in accordance with the principles of natural justice.”

Also Read: Marital Discord Threatening Woman’s Mental Health Can Justify Abortion Under MTP Act; Delhi High Court

The Court further clarified that “during the pendency of the fresh proceedings before the Internal Complaints Committee, the respondent shall not be reinstated or permitted to resume duties at the Institute,” specifying that this arrangement was “so as to ensure that the inquiry is conducted in a free, fair, and uninfluenced manner and to obviate any possibility of contact with, or intimidation of the complainant students. The inquiry must be completed by the Committee within a period of 6 months of the date of the judgment.”

“The present petition and application are disposed of with the above directions,” and that “there shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Premtosh K. Mishra, CGSC; Mr. Anurag Tiwari, Advocate; Mr. Pranabdh Tiwari, Advocate

For the Respondent: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate; Mr. A.S. Singh, Advocate; Ms. Shriya Sharma, Advocate; Ms. Jyoti Garg, Advocate; Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocate

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Naresh
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:63-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 2342/2025
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla, Justice Madhu Jain