Internal Committee findings lack legal force if constitution violates the Sexual Harassment of Women Act, 2013.

The applicant, a PGT (Biology) at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya (JNV), Sonitpur, was accused of moral turpitude involves alleged immoral sexual behavior toward a Class-VIII girl student in March 2019

Following a complaint, a Vidyalaya Level Committee and a Cluster Level Committee found him guilty

The student later submitted a withdrawal of the complaint, claiming it was false

However, the Disciplinary Authority invoked a special summary trial procedure under a 1993 NVS Notification, dispensing with a regular inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and terminated his services on 05.05.2020

An appeal against this was rejected on 07.10.2021

Parallelly, a criminal case under Section 8 of the POCSO Act resulted in the applicant’s acquittal on 03.11.2021, as the victim and informant accepted the police's final report citing insufficient evidence

1. Whether the termination based on a summary inquiry is sustainable following the applicant's honorable acquittal in a criminal trial based on identical facts

2. Whether the Internal Committee constituted for the inquiry complied with the mandatory statutory requirements of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013

The Court applied the principle from Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, which holds that if an acquittal in a criminal case "disproves" a charge that is identical to the disciplinary charge, the disciplinary order cannot stand

It relied on Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, affirming that upholding disciplinary findings after such an acquittal is unjust

The Court further applied Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which requires an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to include an independent external member

Finally, it followed the precedent in Pawan Kumar Niroula v. Union of India, which ruled that a summary trial committee lacking legal safeguards loses its legal force

The Tribunal found that the charges, witnesses, and evidence in the departmental inquiry were identical to those in the criminal case where the applicant was acquitted

The court observed that the summary trial procedure adopted by NVS bypassed the safeguards of a regular inquiry under CCS (CCA) Rules

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the inquiry committee was constituted solely of school staff, failing to include an independent external member as mandated by Section 4 of the 2013 Act

This procedural lapse, coupled with the fact that the victim had withdrawn her allegations and the criminal court found no material against the accused, rendered the termination "illegal, arbitrary, and bad in the eye of law"

The repetition of the same member (Ms. Shyamaleema Deka) in both the preliminary and review committees also suggested institutional bias

The Tribunal allowed the O.A. and quashed the termination order dated 05.05.2020 and the appellate order dated 07.10.2021. The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant, treat the intervening period as duty for all purposes including full pay and allowances, and complete the exercise within 180 days