Disciplinary Authority’s independent approval of chargesheet is mandatory for fresh inquiry after previous procedural infractions.

The Petitioner, a Professor at IIT Delhi, faced allegations of sexual harassment from two Ph.D. scholars in 2013

Following a Fact-Finding Committee report, a chargesheet was issued on 26.04.2013 by the Registrar under the Chairman’s name, rather than by the Board of Governors (BOG)—the competent Disciplinary Authority

Subsequent inquiries led to the Petitioner’s dismissal (2014) and later compulsory retirement (2016)

The High Court set aside the retirement in 2019, which was affirmed by a Division Bench in 2025 on the grounds that the inquiry was not initiated by the BOG and the chargesheet was not approved by the competent authority

Though the Court granted liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry strictly per Vishaka guidelines, the BOG passed a one-line resolution on 08.05.2025 to start fresh proceedings, leading the Director to suo motu bar the Petitioner from teaching female students

The Petitioner challenged this third round of proceedings via the instant stay application

1. Whether there exists adequate ground to stay the operation of the fresh inquiry resolution and consequential interim measures pending the main writ petition

2. Whether the BOG’s resolution for a fresh inquiry was passed with due application of mind and in compliance with the procedural safeguards mandated by the CCS (CCA) Rules and previous court directions

Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, which mandates that the Disciplinary Authority must independently approve the initiation of an inquiry and the drawing up of the Articles of Charge

Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan guidelines and Medha Kotwal Lele v. Union of India, which establishes the Complaints Committee as the deemed Inquiring Authority

Principles from Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath and Sunny Abraham v. Union of India, holding that a chargesheet issued without the specific approval of the Disciplinary Authority is non est and cannot be retrospectively validated

The Court observed that despite two prior successful litigations by the Petitioner, the BOG passed a mechanical, one-line resolution to restart the inquiry without recording any reasons or considering the age of the allegations (12 to 21 years old)

The Court found that the BOG failed to independently apply its mind to whether a prima facie case of misconduct existed or if an inquiry was feasible given the evidentiary infirmities previously noted by the Division Bench

Crucially, the Court noted that IIT Delhi selectively interpreted the "liberty" granted by the 2025 Judgment as a mandate to proceed, while ignoring the strict procedural conditions attached to that liberty

The simultaneous amendment of internal rules to allow the Director to impose suo motu interim measures—without a complainant’s request—was viewed as indicative of a "predisposed institutional mind"

The Court granted the interim relief, staying the operation and implementation of Resolution No. BG/36/2025 dated 08.05.2025 and all consequential proceedings

The Court ordered the parties to complete pleadings and listed the main matter for hearing on 15.09.2026