Introduction:
In a significant and closely examined decision, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in X v. Indira Gandhi National Tribal University [W.P. No. 10864-2023] has set aside the dismissal of a university professor who had been accused of sexually harassing and exploiting a female student. The case, decided by Justice Vivek Jain, involved grave allegations under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), which were ultimately found to be unsustainable after judicial scrutiny revealed that the alleged relationship between the professor and the complainant predated her admission to the university by several years. The Court held that the relationship began in 2013, while the complainant only became a student in 2021, and therefore, the alleged sexual conduct did not fall within the purview of “workplace harassment.” In a scathing critique of the university’s handling of the matter, the Court called the Internal Complaints Committee’s (ICC) report “a totally farce and bogus document,” finding the inquiry process fundamentally flawed, biased, and procedurally illegal. The Court quashed all findings of sexual harassment, directed the immediate reinstatement of the professor, and remanded the matter only on the limited charge relating to the alleged leakage of question papers to the complainant.
Arguments of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, represented by Advocate Dinesh Upadhyay, contended that the entire disciplinary process conducted by the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University was vitiated by illegality, procedural lapses, and factual inconsistencies. He argued that the complaint filed under the POSH Act was misconceived from the very outset since the complainant herself admitted that her relationship with the petitioner had begun in 2013, well before she was ever enrolled as a student at the university. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the alleged sexual relationship and all associated incidents occurred long before the complainant joined the university in March 2021, which meant that there was no “workplace nexus” to the alleged acts. Therefore, the University’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) had no jurisdiction to inquire into or adjudicate upon matters pertaining to private consensual relationships outside the scope of workplace interaction.
The petitioner further contended that the ICC’s composition was defective and non-compliant with the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations. He pointed out that one member of the ICC was on maternity leave during the inquiry and another, an Assistant Registrar, had been kept out of the proceedings entirely, rendering the committee “illegally constituted.” Furthermore, he argued that the inquiry report was unreliable, as it was discovered that two members of the ICC had pre-signed blank pages of the final report before it was even printed—a practice that completely undermined the credibility of the proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel strongly argued that this act rendered the entire report “fabricated and manipulated,” violating principles of natural justice.
He also emphasized that the university’s disciplinary authority and inquiry officer merely rubber-stamped the ICC’s findings without independent assessment, thereby compounding the procedural improprieties. The petitioner highlighted that the complainant’s allegations regarding pregnancy and multiple abortions were inconsistent and unsubstantiated, as even the Sessions Court, which had examined the matter in a related criminal case, had not referred to any such pregnancy or child being born. The petitioner pointed out that the complainant’s claim of having been divorced by her husband due to the alleged relationship was unsupported by any decree or document of divorce.
In his defense, the petitioner asserted that any physical or emotional relationship between him and the complainant was purely consensual and formed outside of any academic or professional context. He maintained that he never exploited his position as a professor to gain undue advantage or coerce the complainant. On the charges of misconduct relating to criticism of the government on social media, the petitioner contended that such actions did not constitute professional misconduct under any university statute, and that no evidence had been presented to prove otherwise. Similarly, he argued that being unreachable at his official address during the pendency of an FIR could not amount to misconduct, as he was under suspension and was legitimately pursuing his legal remedies, including seeking bail before the High Court and Supreme Court.
On the issue of the alleged leakage of examination papers, the petitioner denied any wrongdoing and contended that the inquiry report was devoid of any concrete evidence to establish that he was responsible for sharing question papers with the complainant. He argued that he was neither the paper setter nor had access to the papers before their release. In sum, the petitioner urged the Court to declare the inquiry proceedings null and void and to reinstate him in service, contending that the disciplinary action was a result of malicious prosecution and institutional overreach.
Arguments of the Respondents:
Senior Advocate Ajay Pawar, assisted by Advocate Rahul Kumar Pathak, appeared for the university and defended the disciplinary action taken against the professor. The respondents contended that the university was bound by law to take cognizance of the complaint made by a female student under the POSH Act and the UGC Regulations on the Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions, 2015. They argued that the ICC had duly conducted an inquiry and found six charges substantiated against the petitioner, which formed the basis of the Executive Council’s decision to terminate his employment.
The respondents further submitted that the university’s decision was in accordance with due process and internal regulations. They argued that once the ICC, as a statutory body, had returned findings of guilt, the university had no option but to act upon those recommendations. The respondents insisted that the petitioner had misused his influence as Head of the Department of History to manipulate academic and professional advantages for the complainant. They maintained that even if the alleged relationship had begun before the complainant’s admission, the continuance of the relationship after she became a student constituted a clear case of professional misconduct and violation of the code of conduct for teachers.
Regarding the allegations of procedural irregularities in the ICC, the respondents claimed that the absence of certain members did not invalidate the committee’s functioning, as the quorum was maintained and the inquiry had been conducted in good faith. They defended the integrity of the ICC’s report, asserting that minor administrative irregularities could not nullify the substantive findings of sexual misconduct and abuse of authority. On the charge of leaking question papers, the university contended that sufficient circumstantial evidence existed to suggest the petitioner’s involvement and that he had facilitated unfair academic advantage to the complainant, an act that warranted disciplinary action.
Court’s Findings and Judgment:
Justice Vivek Jain, after an exhaustive review of the evidence, inquiry records, and procedural history, delivered a comprehensive judgment that severely criticized the manner in which the university had conducted the proceedings. The Court noted that the entire foundation of the university’s disciplinary action was unsustainable, as it was built on a flawed interpretation of “workplace sexual harassment.” The Court emphasized that once the complainant herself admitted that the relationship had been ongoing since 2013—almost eight years before she became a student in March 2021—the university had “no business” in inquiring into what was essentially a private matter between two consenting adults.
Justice Jain observed:
“The University seems to be totally ignorant of the fact that the University had no business to inquire into the relationship between the petitioner and complainant once the complainant stated that relationship was going on since the year 2013 and she became a student of the University for the first time on 02.03.2021. What the petitioner being a married person and the complainant being a 30-year-old married lady did in their private life, was not the lookout of the University in any manner whatsoever.”
The Court meticulously analyzed the handwritten complaint dated October 11, 2021, and found that even if taken at face value, it did not disclose any case of workplace sexual harassment. The alleged acts of sexual relations and exploitation pertained entirely to a period prior to the complainant’s admission to the university, which meant that the POSH Act and UGC Regulations were not applicable. The Court went further to observe that the ICC had completely failed to consider this jurisdictional issue, nor had the disciplinary authority or inquiry officer addressed it in their findings.
The Court then turned its attention to the constitution and conduct of the ICC, branding its composition and procedure as “utterly illegal.” Justice Jain pointed out that the absence of key members and the advance signing of blank pages by two ICC members rendered the report “a totally farce and bogus document which cannot be relied upon.” He further remarked that the inquiry proceedings violated basic principles of natural justice and were unworthy of any judicial reliance.
Regarding the complainant’s allegations of pregnancy and abortion, the Court observed that these claims were dubious, as the complainant failed to produce any medical records or legal documents substantiating them. The Sessions Court judgment in the criminal case also made no reference to any such pregnancy or childbirth, which further discredited her assertions.
On the question of other charges, such as the professor’s social media comments and unavailability at his official address, the Court held that these did not constitute misconduct. It reasoned that expressing views about government policies does not amount to professional dereliction and that avoiding arrest during a pending criminal case cannot be construed as a disciplinary offence.
However, on the issue of alleged leakage of question papers, the Court observed that this charge required further examination. The judgment stated that the inquiry report was silent on critical aspects, such as whether the professor was the paper setter or how he came into possession of the papers. The Court directed the university to conduct a fresh inquiry limited to this charge, with the liberty to take appropriate action based on new findings.
Concluding the matter, Justice Jain set aside the termination order and directed the reinstatement of the professor “forthwith.” However, he ordered that the petitioner would remain under suspension until the university concluded a fresh inquiry into the question paper leakage issue. The writ petition was thus partly allowed.