Dr.Pramod Singh vs Pondicherry University,

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 17012 of 2023
CNR:{HCMA010992622023}
and
WMP No. 16207 of 2023
Dr.Pramod Singh
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Pondicherry University,
Rep. by its Registrar(I/C),
R.V. Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry - 605 014.
2. The Chair Person,
Sexual Harassment Prevention
Committee(Dean and Professor),
School of Management and Department of
Commerce,
Pondicherry University,
Puducherry - 605 014.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the concerned records
from the 1st respondent, quash the office order of the 1st respondent bearing
office order No. 19 bearing ref.No. Pu/Estt(T)/ET4/2023-24/23 dated
10.05.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the
1st respondent to reinstate the Petitioner with full back wages, continuity of
service and all monetary and other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondent(s): M/s.A.V.Bharathi (for R1)
No appearance (for R2)
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.05.2023
passed by the first respondent and seeking a consequential direction to the first
respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, continuity of service
and all monetary and other attendant benefits.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner joined the respondent University in 2002 and is presently functioning
as a Professor under the UGC Career Advancement Scheme (CAS). It is further
submitted that a Ph.D. student (hereinafter referred to as “the victim”) was
allotted to the petitioner as a research scholar in February 2021. While so, the
victim addressed a letter dated 19.01.2023 to the Registrar, seeking a change of
research guide. However, the said letter did not contain any reference to the
alleged sexual harassment. Subsequently, on 23.03.2023, the petitioner received
an e-mail enclosing the complaint of sexual harassment made by the victim, to
which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 27.03.2023. The learned
counsel for the petitioner would contend that the proceedings conducted under
the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013, were in blatant violation to the provisions of the said Act.
He would further submit that, even in the absence of a charge memorandum,
when the petitioner appeared before the Committee, the Committee referred to
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
two other instances of alleged misconduct, which had not been notified to him.
Thereafter, the Committee proceeded with undue haste, concluded the enquiry
and submitted a report recommending punishment.
2.1. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the first respondent, being the disciplinary authority, imposed the
punishment without conducting a proper enquiry and on the basis of
proceedings conducted in blatant violation of the provisions of the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013. He would further contend that the punishment was not imposed in
accordance with the settled principles of service jurisprudence. It is also the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment was
imposed in undue haste without even furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to
the petitioner. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
A ureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others , reported in (2024) 1 SCC
632 , and Surekha Domaji Bele v. Executive Engineer , reported in 2016 INSC
639, as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Thangavelu
v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court , reported in
2026:MHC:2778. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the impugned order.
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
3. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would
contend that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and that
the petitioner appears to be a repeat offender. He would further submit that the
decision of the Complaints Committee was arrived at only after examining the
relevant witnesses and that the punishment was recommended in accordance
with the statutory mandate. Therefore, in the interest of the institution, the first
respondent imposed what is considered to be a proportionate punishment. It is
also the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that
suspension from service for a period of two years, and demotion to a lower post
are punishments provided under the applicable Service Rules and, therefore, the
first respondent is entitled to impose such punishments. Hence, he prayed to
dismiss the present Writ Petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.
5. Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, deals with the manner in
which an enquiry into a complaint is to be conducted. Section 11(1) of the said
Act provides for the conduct of an enquiry into a complaint in accordance with
the applicable service rules. In the case in hand, though the statutory scheme
contemplates that a copy of the findings of the Complaints Committee shall be
made available to the parties concerned, namely, the aggrieved woman and the
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
delinquent, enabling them to make their representations in accordance with law.
Admittedly, a copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner.
6. Though the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules provides
that an enquiry into a complaint of sexual harassment may be conducted, “as far
as practicable”, in accordance with the procedure laid down therein, it does not
mean that the mandatory requirements of natural justice can be disregarded.
Natural justice is not an empty formality, it is a guarantee of procedural
fairness. In the present case, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to
cross-examine the witnesses, nor was he furnished with copies of the statements
recorded from the victim or the other witnesses. As rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 to the same.
But, those instances were also taken into consideration while recommending the
punishment. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order
dated 10.05.2023 was passed in blatant violation of the provisions of the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013, as well as the principles of natural justice.
7. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Aureliano Fernandes’s case (cited supra), wherein, in
paragraphs 70 and 71, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
“70. In the instant case, though the Committee appointed
by the Disciplinary Authority did not hold an inquiry strictly in
terms of the step-by-step procedure laid down in Rule 14 of the
CCS (CCA) Rules, nonetheless, we have seen that it did furnish
copies of all the complaints, the depositions of the complainants
and the relevant material to the appellant, called upon him to
give his reply in defence and directed him to furnish the list of
witnesses that he proposed to rely on. Records also reveal that
the appellant had furnished a detailed reply in defence. He had
also submitted a list of witnesses and depositions. This goes to
show that he was well-acquainted with the nature of allegations
levelled against him and knew what he had to state in his
defence. Given the above position, non-framing of the articles of
charge cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest of the
appellant.
71. In fact, the glaring defects and the procedural lapses in
the inquiry proceeding took place only thereafter, in the month
of May, 2009, when 12 hearings, most of them back-to-back,
were conducted by the Committee at a lightning speed. On the
one hand, the Committee kept on forwarding to the appellant,
depositions of some more complainants received later on and
those of other witnesses and called upon him to furnish his reply
and on the other hand, it directed him to come prepared to
cross-examine the said complainants and witnesses as also
record his further deposition, all in a span of one week. Even if
the medical grounds taken by the appellant seemed suspect, the
Committee ought to have given him reasonable time to prepare
his defence, more so when his request for being represented
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
through a lawyer had already been declined. It was all this
undue anxiety that had led to short-circuiting the inquiry
proceedings conducted by the Committee and damaging the very
fairness of the process.”
8. The ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that the
expression “as far as practicable”, employed in the relevant rules, cannot be
construed as permitting the principles of natural justice to be disregarded or
diluted. The procedure adopted must ensure fairness and a reasonable
opportunity to the parties concerned.
9. From the narration of the events, this Court does not find that the
procedure adopted in the present case was fair or that adequate safeguards were
provided to protect the interests of both parties. Further, while imposing the
punishment, the first respondent imposed multiple penalties, qua suspension
from service for two years and demotion to a lower post. The learned counsel
appearing for the first respondent would contend that such punishments are
provided under the applicable Service Rules. In this regard, it is relevant to refer
to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surekha Domaji Bele’s case
(cited supra), wherein, in paragraphs 86, 87 and 88, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has observed as follows:-
“86. In Union of India v. S.C. Parashar, (2006) 3 SCC
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
167, this Court considered a case where the disciplinary
authority had imposed an amalgam of penalties in the same
disciplinary proceeding. The employee had been visited with
reduction in pay, loss of seniority and recovery of loss. This
Court held as follows:
"12. The penalty imposed upon the Respondent is an
amalgam of minor penalty and major penalty. The
Respondent has been inflicted with three penalties :
(1) reduction to the minimum of the time-scale of pay for
a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of
seniority; and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred
by the Government to the tune of Rs.74,341.89p., i.e.,
Rs.18,585.47p. on account of damage to the Gypsy in 18
(eighteen) equal monthly instalments. Whereas reduction
of time-scale of pay with cumulative effect is a major
penalty within the meaning of clause (v) of Rule 11 of the
CCS Rules, loss of seniority and recovery of amount
would come within the purview of minor penalty, as
envisaged by clause (iii) and (iii)(a) thereof. The
Disciplinary Authority, therefore, in our opinion acted
illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing both minor
and major penalties by the same order. Such a course of
action could not have been taken in law.
87. The principle emerging from the aforesaid decision is
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
authorise such a course. The order of punishment must
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
therefore be tested with reference to the penalties prescribed
under the governing Regulations.
88. Accordingly, we hold that the Appellant cannot be
visited with both dismissal under Regulation 91(2)(g) and a
separate punishment of suspension under Regulation 91(2)(d)
for the same misconduct. The direction in the dismissal order
dated 12.07.2017 treating the suspension period as
punishment shall not operate as an independent or additional
penalty over and above the harsher penalty finally imposed.”
10. The aforesaid judgment was followed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Thangavelu’s case (cited supra). According to the above ratio,
combining of multiple penalties is unknow to the service jurisprudence. Thus, in
view of the procedural irregularities and the violations of the principles of
natural justice as discussed hereinabove, this Court finds sufficient justification
to interfere with the impugned order dated 10.05.2023.
11. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 10.05.2023 is hereby
quashed. However, considering the nature of the complaint, this Court is
inclined to remit the matter to the Complaints Committee for a de novo enquiry.
The Committee shall afford adequate opportunity to the petitioner to defend
himself in accordance with law. The petitioner shall cooperate with the
proceedings and shall not seek unnecessary adjournments. Upon completion of
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
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.
12. Considering the fact that the complaint dates back to the year 2023,
the respondents are 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.
13. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
16-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KV
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
To
1. Pondicherry University,
Rep. by its Registrar(I/C),
R.V. Nagar, Kalapet,
Puducherry - 605 014.
2. The Chair Person,
Sexual Harassment Prevention Committee(Dean and Professor),
School of Management and Department of Commerce,
Pondicherry University,
Puducherry - 605 014.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )

2026:MHC:4260
WP No. 17012 of 2023
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
KV
WP No. 17012 of 2023
16-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 08:04:21 pm )