Facts
The Petitioner, the Principal of Ramanujan College, was accused of sexual harassment by three assistant professors
Source reference: p. 1-2, 5On May 5, 2025, the Deputy Registrar (Colleges), University of Delhi, constituted an ad hoc fact-finding committee to examine these allegations
Source reference: p. 6The committee’s report [No. 23.06.2025] found the charges serious and recommended referring them to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC)
Source reference: p. 6Based solely on this report and Vice-Chancellor approval, the College Chairperson issued a suspension order on September 18, 2025
Source reference: p. 6The Petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the University to form an ad hoc committee and the validity of the suspension order, arguing it was stigmatic
Source reference: p. 3, 5Issues
1. Whether the College had the power to suspend the Petitioner for a case pertaining to the PoSH Act
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 7.12. Whether the Deputy Registrar (Colleges), DU, had the power to constitute an ad hoc fact-finding committee pursuant to a complaint received under the PoSH Act
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 7.23. Whether the said Suspension Order is stigmatic in nature
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 7.3Law Applied
Section 28 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (PoSH) Act, 2013, which stipulates that the Act is in addition to, and not in derogation of, other laws
Source reference: p. 14, 23Section 11 of the PoSH Act requires inquiries to be conducted by the ICC in accordance with applicable service rules
Source reference: p. 15, 18The inherent right of an employer to suspend an employee pending inquiry as affirmed in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra
Source reference: p. 9, 10Principles from Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India, which mandate strict adherence to the statutory procedure of the PoSH Act
Source reference: p. 17, 22The definition of 'stigma' from Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Pan American World Airways
Source reference: p. 25Reasoning
The Court reasoned that while Section 12 of the PoSH Act does not explicitly mention suspension as an interim measure, an employer’s inherent power to suspend is preserved by Section 28 and existing service rules
Source reference: para. 24-26, 43the constitution of the ad hoc fact-finding committee was held illegal because the PoSH Act mandates that the ICC/Local Committee "shall" inquire into such complaints; creating a parallel, extra-statutory body violates the specialized, time-bound mechanism intended by the legislature
Source reference: para. 31-34, 39, 44The Court analyzed the language of the suspension order, noting it explicitly cited "serious misconduct and harassment". The Court found this language editorialized and prejudicial, creating a negative public impression of the Petitioner before the inquiry's conclusion, thereby making the order stigmatic
Source reference: para. 52, 53-54Holding
an employer retains the inherent power to suspend an employee during a PoSH inquiry under service rules; the creation of an ad hoc fact-finding committee to determine if a complaint should be sent to the ICC is de hors the PoSH Act and impermissible; and the specific suspension order was stigmatic
The Court set aside the Suspension Order dated September 18, 2025, but granted the College liberty to pass a fresh, non-stigmatic order
Source reference: para. 57-58Original Court PDF
Prof. Rasal SinghvsUniversity Of Delhi & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in