After two sexual-harassment complaints against a medical professor, Karnataka HC keeps him suspended and orders action against officials who backed his reinstatement

Dr. Ashwin Hebbar, Associate Professor at Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences (“SIMS”), faced a 2022 complaint of sexual harassment/molestation by a former student.

Although the Internal Complaints Committee closed that complaint after a purported withdrawal, a Local Committee subsequently found a prima facie case, and he was suspended following registration of an FIR.

His suspension was later quashed by the writ court on 19 June 2024.

In June 2025, a second complaint was made by a postgraduate student alleging that Dr. Hebbar had sexually harassed her at a dinner party.

An FIR was registered, he was arrested and remained in custody for more than 48 hours, and he was again suspended under Rule 33 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 2021.

The POSH Committee’s interim and final reports found the allegations prima facie substantiated and recommended action under the applicable service rules.

While departmental proceedings were pending, the Director of SIMS recommended revocation of Dr. Hebbar’s suspension, emphasising his professional qualifications, surgeries, teaching responsibilities and alleged indispensability to the institution, without adequately addressing the sexual-harassment allegations or the earlier complaint.

On 17 November 2025, the Principal Secretary revoked the suspension and temporarily transferred Dr. Hebbar to Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences.

Dr. Hebbar challenged the transfer in W.P. No. 35404 of 2025.

The Single Judge stayed the transfer on the ground that the transfer lacked prior resolutions of the governing councils.

SIMS filed the present writ appeal.

Subsequently, governing-council resolutions granting post facto approval to the transfer were passed and challenged by Dr. Hebbar in W.P. No. 15057 of 2026.

1. Whether the Single Judge was justified in staying Dr. Hebbar’s transfer from SIMS to Haveri on the technical ground that prior governing-council resolutions had not been passed.

2. Whether the revocation of Dr. Hebbar’s suspension and his continued attachment to SIMS were legally and administratively sustainable while serious sexual-harassment allegations and departmental proceedings were pending.

3. Whether the post facto resolutions approving Dr. Hebbar’s transfer could validate the transfer in the circumstances of the case.

4. Whether disciplinary action was warranted against the Director of SIMS and the Principal Secretary for recommending or ordering revocation of suspension despite the pending allegations and POSH findings.

The Court applied the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, including the statutory framework governing Internal Complaints Committees and Local Committees.

It relied on Rule 33 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 2021, concerning suspension upon detention in custody for more than 48 hours.

It also considered Rule 10(5)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, under which suspension must be reviewed after six months if departmental proceedings have not commenced or a charge-sheet has not been filed.

The Court held that this provision did not require revocation where the charge-sheet had already been issued.

Under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, the Court held that procedural technicalities concerning transfer could not override the need to protect complainants and preserve the fairness of disciplinary proceedings.

Relying on Union of India v. Dilip Paul, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1423, and Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759, it reiterated that courts must assess sexual-harassment cases sensitively, avoid hyper-technicalities and misplaced sympathy, and give due weight to credible victim testimony.

The Court held that the transfer was necessary to prevent Dr. Hebbar from remaining in the same institution as the student who had complained against him and to facilitate a fair and impartial enquiry.

The absence of prior governing-council resolutions was treated as a secondary procedural defect, particularly because post facto resolutions had subsequently approved the transfer and the circumstances demanded immediate protective action.

The Court found the revocation of suspension within approximately four and a half months unjustified: Rule 10(5)(b) did not mandate revocation, since articles of charge had been issued on 12 November 2025 and the departmental enquiry was pending.

It further criticised the Director’s recommendation for concentrating on Dr. Hebbar’s professional utility while omitting his prior complaint, the current POSH findings, FIR and arrest.

The Court concluded that institutional convenience, patient care and Dr. Hebbar’s professional status could not outweigh the safety, dignity and psychological well-being of the complainant or the integrity of the disciplinary process.

The Court quashed the order dated 17 November 2025 revoking Dr. Hebbar’s suspension and directed that he remain suspended until completion of the disciplinary enquiry and issuance of an appropriate punishment order.

He was, however, directed to remain attached to Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences.

The Court directed the State Government to initiate departmental proceedings against Dr. Virupakshappa, Director of SIMS, and directed the Department of Personnel and Training and the State Government to take appropriate action against Mr. Mohammed Mohsin, Principal Secretary/Additional Chief Secretary.

A copy of the judgment was also directed to be sent to the National Medical Commission for appropriate action against Dr. Hebbar, including consideration of his medical licence if he were found guilty.