Madras HC Directs IIT Madras To Let Professor Accused Of Sexual Harassment Cross-Examine Witnesses In Disciplinary Inquiry

In brief

The question

Whether the CCASH proceedings and recommendation could be invalidated for alleged non-compliance with procedural fairness, including failure to furnish the full report and permit cross-examination.

The court held

W.P. No. 17301 of 2020 was disposed of with directions that the respondents proceed through disciplinary proceedings, obtain the petitioner’s explanation, and provide an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses in any oral enquiry, using a suitable procedure.

It also directed

The Court did not quash the CCASH recommendation or determine the merits of the allegations.

W.P. No. 29937 of 2023, seeking consideration for appointment as Professor, was dismissed; the petitioner was permitted to submit a fresh representation subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings.

01Facts

The petitioner, an Assistant Professor at IIT Madras, challenged the Complaints Committee Against Sexual Harassment’s (CCASH) recommendation arising from a sexual-harassment complaint based on WhatsApp conversations.

¶ 4, 6 · pp. 3–5

The Committee recommended POSH training, a two-year restriction on guiding Ph.D. students, and demotion; the petitioner contended that he had not received the full enquiry report or an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

¶ 4, 6 · pp. 3–5

While the writ proceedings were pending, the Board authorised issuance of a charge memorandum, and the Director subsequently issued one calling for the petitioner’s explanation.

¶ 23–25 · pp. 14–15

The petitioner also sought consideration for appointment as Professor.

¶ 2, 9 · p. 3, 8

02Issues

i.Whether the CCASH proceedings and recommendation could be invalidated for alleged non-compliance with procedural fairness, including failure to furnish the full report and permit cross-examination.

¶ 11, 20–22 · pp. 8–9, 13–14

ii.Whether, following issuance of a charge memorandum, the Court should interfere with the CCASH recommendation or instead require procedural safeguards in the ensuing disciplinary enquiry.

¶ 24–27 · pp. 15–17

iii.Whether the petitioner’s candidature for Professor should be considered while the disciplinary proceedings remained pending.

¶ 9, 29 · p. 8, 17

03Law Applied

The Court considered the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, under which an Internal Complaints Committee may function as an enquiry authority for disciplinary-rule purposes.

¶ 20, 24 · p. 13, 15

It applied the principle that sexual-harassment inquiries must be procedurally fair and that the requirements of natural justice must be balanced with protection of the complainant; the procedure must be fair “as far as practicable”.

¶ 14–15 · pp. 10–11

Relying on K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India and State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma, the Court noted that denial of cross-examination does not automatically invalidate proceedings and that prejudice and overall fairness are relevant considerations.

¶ 18–19 · p. 12

It also referred to Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa on the need for procedural fairness in sexual-harassment proceedings.

¶ 14 · p. 10

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner had received only the Committee’s recommendation, while the Committee’s conclusion rested on the complainant’s deposition and WhatsApp messages; the petitioner accepted the messages’ authenticity but disputed their meaning and context.

¶ 21–22 · p. 13

However, because the respondents had proceeded to issue a charge memorandum, the Court treated the validity of the CCASH report as academic at that stage: the disciplinary authority was to conduct the further process before any final punishment.

¶ 24–26 · pp. 15–16

To ensure a fair disciplinary enquiry, the Court directed that the petitioner receive a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, including an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, directly or through an appropriate alternative procedure that protects the complainant.

¶ 26–27 · pp. 16–17