In a significant decision concerning workplace sexual harassment inquiries, the Madras High Court quashed an order suspending a professor for two years and demoting him, finding that the proceedings conducted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 violated the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice by denying the accused a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Pramod Singh, a Professor under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme at Pondicherry University, challenged the order dated 10.05.2023 passed by the University’s Registrar (acting as the first respondent) which imposed a punishment of suspension from service for two years and demotion to a lower post following an inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The petition sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the said order, to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service and all monetary and other attendant benefits.
Key Facts
- The petitioner joined Pondicherry University in 2002 and was functioning as a Professor under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) at the time of the proceedings.
- In February 2021, a Ph.D. student (hereinafter referred to as “the victim”) was allotted to the petitioner as a research scholar.
- On 19.01.2023, the victim addressed a letter to the Registrar seeking a change of research guide; the letter did not contain any reference to alleged sexual harassment.
- On 23.03.2023, the petitioner received an e-mail enclosing the complaint of sexual harassment made by the victim.
- The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the complaint on 27.03.2023.
- The inquiry conducted by the Sexual Harassment Prevention Committee did not furnish the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report or the statements recorded from the victim or other witnesses.
- The Committee referred to two earlier instances of alleged similar misconduct in its report without first bringing them to the notice of the petitioner or affording him an opportunity to respond.
- The proceedings were concluded with undue haste, and the Committee submitted a report recommending punishment.
- The impugned order dated 10.05.2023 imposed suspension from service for a period of two years and demotion to a lower post.
Procedural History
- The writ petition (WP No. 17012 of 2023) was filed before the Madras High Court in 2023 (exact filing date not specified in the judgment).
- The matter was heard by a Single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Kumarappan.
- Judgment was pronounced on 16 October 2026.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 10.05.2023;
- Reinstatement to his former position with full back wages;
- Continuity of service;
- All monetary and other attendant benefits;
- Costs of litigation.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the inquiry and punishment imposed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 complied with the statutory provisions, particularly Section 11, and the principles of natural justice, namely whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, to cross-examine witnesses and to respond to all allegations, including prior instances of alleged misconduct referred to in the Committee’s report.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Balan Haridas, contended that the proceedings before the Complaints Committee were in blatant violation of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013. He relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others (2024) 1 SCC 632 and Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer (2016 INSC 639), as well as the Division Bench of this Court in Thangavelu v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (2026:MHC:2778). It was submitted that:
- No charge memorandum was framed, yet the Committee proceeded with the inquiry.
- The petitioner was not furnished with copies of the statements recorded from the victim or other witnesses, thereby denying him the opportunity to cross-examine.
- Two earlier instances of alleged similar misconduct were mentioned in the report without first being brought to the petitioner’s notice, violating the right to respond.
- The inquiry was conducted with undue haste, contrary to the requirement of a fair and reasonable procedure.
- The punishment of suspension and demotion was imposed without adhering to the settled principles of service jurisprudence which prohibit the amalgamation of minor and major penalties unless the governing rules expressly permit it.
For the Respondent
Learned counsel for the first respondent, M/s. A.V. Bharathi, argued that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature and that the petitioner appeared to be a repeat offender. It was contended that:
- The decision of the Complaints Committee was arrived at only after examining the relevant witnesses.
- The punishment recommended was in accordance with the statutory mandate and the applicable Service Rules.
- Suspension from service for two years and demotion to a lower post are permissible punishments under the service regulations governing the University.
- Therefore, in the interest of the institution, the first respondent was entitled to impose such punishments and the writ petition should be dismissed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 governs the manner in which an inquiry into a complaint is to be conducted. Sub-section (1) thereof requires that the inquiry be carried out in accordance with the applicable service rules. The Court emphasized that natural justice is not an empty formality but a guarantee of procedural fairness, drawing upon the observations in Aureliano Fernandes (paragraphs 70-71) where the Supreme Court held that the expression “as far as practicable” in the relevant rules cannot be construed as permitting the principles of natural justice to be disregarded or diluted.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that the procedure adopted in the present case was unfair and that adequate safeguards were not provided to protect the interests of both parties. Specifically:
- The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
- He was not furnished with copies of the statements recorded from the victim or the other witnesses, thus depriving him of the material necessary to make an effective defence.
- The two earlier instances of alleged similar misconduct were referred to in the report without first bringing them to the notice of the petitioner and affording him an opportunity to respond, yet those instances were taken into consideration while recommending punishment.
- The inquiry was concluded with undue haste, which the Court equated to a short-circuiting of the proceedings that damaged the very fairness of the process.
The Court further observed that the punishment imposed - suspension from service for two years and demotion to a lower post - constituted an amalgam of penalties. Relying on Surekha Domaji Bele (paragraphs 86-88) and the Division Bench decision in Thangavelu (2026:MHC:2778), the Court held that where the service rules prescribe distinct penalties, the disciplinary authority cannot impose an amalgam of separate substantive penalties for the same misconduct unless the rules expressly authorise such a course. The order of punishment must therefore be tested with reference to the penalties prescribed under the governing Regulations.
In view of the procedural irregularities and the violations of the principles of natural justice, the Court found sufficient justification to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.05.2023. Consequently, the order was quashed. However, considering the nature of the complaint, the Court was inclined to remit the matter to the Complaints Committee for a de novo enquiry. The Committee was directed to afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself in accordance with law, and the petitioner was obliged to cooperate with the proceedings and not seek unnecessary adjournments.
Upon completion of the enquiry, the Committee shall submit its report to the disciplinary authority for appropriate orders. Both the Complaints Committee and the disciplinary authority shall ensure that the proceedings are conducted in accordance with the applicable law and the principles of natural justice.
Finally, taking into account that the complaint dates back to the year 2023, the respondents were directed to complete the entire proceedings on their own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of the first hearing fixed by the Committee. The first hearing shall be fixed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs were awarded.
The Verdict
The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 10.05.2023, and remitted the matter to the Complaints Committee for a de novo enquiry. The Committee was directed to conclude the proceedings within three months from the date of the first hearing, which must be fixed within four weeks from the receipt of a copy of the judgment. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Natural Justice Is Non-Negotiable in Workplace Inquiries
Employers and internal committees must ensure that any inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 adheres strictly to the principles of natural justice. This includes providing the accused with a copy of the complaint, statements of witnesses, and a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and respond to all allegations, including any prior instances of misconduct that the committee intends to rely upon.
Prior Allegations Must Be Disclosed Before Reliance
If a committee intends to take into account earlier instances of alleged similar misconduct while recommending punishment, it must first bring those instances to the notice of the accused and afford him a proper opportunity to respond. Failure to do so vitiates the inquiry and renders any consequent punishment liable to be set aside.
Penalties Cannot Be Amalgamated Unless Rules Permit
Disciplinary authorities must examine the applicable service rules before imposing multiple penalties for the same act. Where the rules prescribe distinct minor and major penalties, an amalgamation is permissible only if the rules expressly authorise such a course; otherwise, the punishment must be limited to the penalty that the rules allow for the proven misconduct.
