Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a professor at Mangalore University and former Chairman of the Department of Economics, challenged a second show cause notice dated 05.11.2020 that proposed dismissal from service and placed him under suspension. This action stemmed from a complaint of sexual harassment made by a project student in April 2018, which was processed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The University's Internal Complaints Committee found the petitioner guilty, and the Syndicate resolved to accept the report, leading to the impugned notice. The petitioner contended that no independent disciplinary inquiry was held as required by service rules before proposing the major penalty of dismissal, and that the second show cause notice violated principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He relied on Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Ruchika Singh Chhabra v. Air France India. The respondents, representing the University, argued that under the Supreme Court's directions in Vishaka and Medha Kotwal Lele, the report of the Internal Complaints Committee is deemed a disciplinary inquiry report and is sufficient to impose punishment; they also contended that the writ petition was premature as the petitioner had replied to the show cause and no final decision had been taken. The High Court framed the sole issue of whether the proposed penalty could be imposed without following the procedure under service rules. In its analysis, the court examined the pre-legislative case law, noting that the Vishaka guidelines and the subsequent directions in Medha Kotwal Lele—including that the Committee's report shall be treated as an inquiry report and not a preliminary investigation—continue to be in operation and binding until legislation is enacted. The excerpt of the judgment provided ends while the court was beginning to discuss the post-legislative position under the 2013 Act, and contains no final decision or order on the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Guidelines on Sexual Harassment - Binding Nature of Supreme Court Directives - Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241; Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, (2013) 1 SCC 297 - The Supreme Court directed that the report of the Internal Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report in disciplinary action and not a mere preliminary investigation. The High Court held that these directions continue to be in operation and binding until a legislation is promulgated. (Paras 8-9) B) Service Law - Disciplinary Action for Sexual Harassment - Challenge to Second Show Cause Notice Proposing Dismissal - Service Rules (unspecified), Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Section 9 - The petitioner contended that the second show cause notice proposing dismissal from service was issued without conducting a disciplinary inquiry as required under service rules, relying on Supreme Court precedents. The respondents argued that under the Vishaka and Medha Kotwal Lele guidelines, the Internal Complaints Committee report itself is sufficient to impose penalty. The High Court framed the issue of whether the proposed penalty could be imposed without following service rules but the judgment excerpt does not contain a final ruling on this issue. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proposed penalty of dismissal from service in the second show cause notice could have been proposed to be imposed without at the outset, following the procedure stipulated for imposition of such penalty as obtaining under the Service Rules?
Law Points
- the directions of the Supreme Court in Vishaka and Medha Kotwal Lele continue to bind and shall operate until suitable legislation is enacted
- the report of the Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act shall be deemed an inquiry report and not a mere preliminary investigation
- the petitioner challenged the second show cause notice proposing dismissal without a separate disciplinary inquiry under service rules
