Page No.# 1/20 GAHC010244432025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6240/2025 DR. ANIRUDDHA KUMAR S/O- SRI RAM JIYAWAN YADAV, PRESENT ADDRESS- D.C. COLONY, P.S- DIPHU, KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782460, PERMANENT ADDRESS- VILLAGE- SHEKHPUR MALPURA (NAIPURA), P.O- GOHILA, DIST- AMBEDKAR NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN-224145 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2:THE ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR DORGOKONA SILCHAR DIST.-CACHAR ASSAM PIN- 788011. 3:THE VICE CHANCELLOR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR-788011 ASSAM 4:THE REGISTRAR ASSAM UNIVERSITY DORGOKONA SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR Page No.# 2/20 ASSAM PIN- 788011 5:UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI-110002 6:HEMA BISWAKARMA D/O HARI PRASAD BISWAKARMA PRESENT ADDRESS- R/O MANDAL RENT HOUSE OLD BUILDING NEAR DIPHU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL P.O. AND P.S. DIPHU DIST- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782460 PERMANENT ADDRESS- R/O 4 NO. LINE VILL GRASSMORE TEA GARDEN P.O. CARRON DIST- JALPAIGURI WEST BENGAL PIN-735205 7:PRIYA SINGH D/O PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH R/O GURUDEV LANE WARD NO.1 P.S. LUMDING P.O. HOJAI DIST- HOJAI ASSAM PIN-78243 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. R S CHOWDHURY, MR R DAS Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS S DAS, (R-6&7),MS. J BAISHYA (R-6&7),MR R KALITA (R-6&7),MR S K SARKAR (R-6&7),DR. P AGARWAL (R-5),SC, U G C,SC, ASSAM UNIVERSITY Page No.# 3/20 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 12.08 .2026 Heard Mrs. R. S. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr. P. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent No.5; Mr. S.K. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 6 & 7; Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel for the Assam University. 2] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.10.2025, whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule 11(vii) of the CCS (CCA) Rule 1965 as a major penalty with immediate effect was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner was employed as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Hindi in the Assam University which is a Central University established by an Act of Parliament and was posted at Diphu Campus in the District of Karbi Anglong, while the petitioner had been rendering his services as an Assistant Professor two female students lodged a complaint alleging sexual harassment against the petitioner before the competent authority. Pursuant to that notices were issued to the petitioner and upon preliminary enquiry being conducted the memorandum of charges dated 12.02.2025 was issued to the petitioner. The memorandum of charges included the three articles of charges and also statement of imputation of mental harassment of a female student in educational institution. The memorandum of charges also included the list of witnesses and documents proposed to be relied upon in the enquiry process against the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, communicated with the respondent authority that the Page No.# 4/20 relevant documents were not enclosed. According to the petitioner these documents were never handed over to the petitioner prior to the enquiry being proceeded. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted by the ICC in complete violation of the procedure prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules read with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as also the UGC guidelines or the notifications. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 31.10.2025 the major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed. 3] The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are glaring irregularities noticed in how the enquiry was conducted. Firstly, the complaints were lodged beyond the period of three months as mandated under the Act of 2013, if complaint is to be entertained beyond the period of six months, then, such complaints cannot be entertained without reasons being recorded. It is submitted that the witnesses were never cross-examined by the petitioner and the defence witnesses which were listed or forwarded by the petitioner were never called for and even the petitioner was also never informed as to whether they had been called for or examined. In other words these witnesses were never cross-examined in presence of petitioner. The copy of the complaint was also never handed over to the petitioner. It is submitted that the UGC has laid down detail guidelines as to how such enquiries are to be conducted. These guidelines were brought into effect through the University Grant Commission (Prevention of Prohibition Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Student in the Higher Educational Institution) Regulations 2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to these guidelines submits that there are specific provisions particularly under Page No.# 5/20 Regulations 7 & 8, which laid down the process as to how complaints are to be entertained and enquiries are to be conducted. 4] A bare perusal of the process as laid down clearly reveals that the procedure adopted by the petitioner has been completely flouted by the respondents. The further reference is made to Rule 14 and 14(4)(a) of the CCS (CCA) Rule to submit that the CCS (CCA) Rules which is adopted by the respondents also clearly provides the manner in how the enquiry is to be conducted and these rules are also not adhered to by the ICC in the enquiry conducted against the petitioner and therefore, the conclusions arrived at through the enquiry report is violative of the established rules and procedure. Under such circumstances the petitioner is before this Court praying for interference by setting aside of the order dated 31.12.2025 passed against him and further order for reinstatement in service. 5] Per contra Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University has disputed the contentions of the petitioner by filing affidavit. The respondents have disputed the various contentions raised by the petitioner regarding non adherence of the procedure prescribed. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Senior Counsel in all fairness submits that the records which are produced before the Court did not recall any findings by the ICC as to when and how the petitioner was given opportunity to examine the witnesses or whether the witnesses including the defence witnesses were examined in the presence of the petitioner. He however, disputes the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a copy of the complaint was never furnished to the petitioner. He Page No.# 6/20 further submits that the memorandum of charges along with the copy of the complaint was furnished to the petitioner. 6] Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the records were called for from the University. 7] Mr. S. K. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 6 and 7, who were arrayed as party respondents pursuant to an application filed by the complainants. Mr. S.K. Sarkar, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 6 & 7 by referring to the affidavit filed by them submits that the enquiry is required to be conducted as per the procedure prescribed under the Rules, as the complainants are being students the prayer for interference with the order ought not to be granted. 8] Dr. P. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for UGC submits that in their affidavit, they have reiterated their stand, which is duly reflected in the UGC Regulations of 2015. This Regulation is still in force and have neither been withdrawn nor superseded. Having regard to the nature and status of the educational institution, all instructions, guidelines and regulations issued by the UGC are binding and mandatory insofar as institutions of higher learning, including the respondent institution, are concerned. 9] The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. The records which were called for and placed before the Court on the last date were also clearly perused. Page No.# 7/20 10] The provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 which are relevant for the purposes of this proceeding are extracted below: 9. Complaint of sexual harassment.—(1) Any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace to the Internal Committee if so constituted, or the Local Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last incident: Provided that where such complaint cannot be made in writing, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee or the Chairperson or any Member of the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the woman for making the complaint in writing: Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months , if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the said period. (2) Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this section. 11. Inquiry into complaint.— (1) Subject to the provisions of section 10, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall, where the respondent is an employee, proceed to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent and where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed or in case of a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, if prima facie case exist, forward the complaint to the police, within a period of seven days for registering the case under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and any other relevant provisions of the said Code where applicable: Provided that where the aggrieved woman informs the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, that any term or condition of the settlement arrived at under sub-section (2) of section 10 has not been complied with by the respondent, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee shall proceed to make an inquiry into the complaint or, as the case may be, forward the complaint to the police: Provided further that where both the parties are employees, the parties shall, during the course Page No.# 8/20 of inquiry, be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the findings shall be made available to both the parties enabling them to make representation against the findings before the Committee. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the court may, when the respondent is convicted of the offence, order payment of such sums as it may consider appropriate, to the aggrieved woman by the respondent, having regard to the provisions of section 15. (3) For the purpose of making an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:— (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and (c) any other matter which may be prescribed. (4) The inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of ninety days. 13. Inquiry report.—(1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties. (2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter. (3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be— (i) to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed; (ii) to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent, from Page No.# 9/20 the salary or wages of the respondent such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid to the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions of section 15: Provide that in case the employer is unable to make such deduction from the salary of the respondent due to his being absent from duty or cessation of employment it may direct to the respondent to pay such sum to the aggrieved woman: Provided further that in case the respondent fails to pay the sum referred to in clause (ii), the Internal Committee or as, the case may be, the Local Committee may forward the order for recovery of the sum as an arrear of land revenue to the concerned District Officer. (4) The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him.” 11] The procedure prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules which is stated to be adopted by the respondent is also required to be referred. (a) Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules lays down the procedure for imposing major penalties which are as follows: (4) (a) The Disciplinary Authority shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Government servant a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article or charges is proposed to be sustained. 5 (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted, or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an inquiring authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government servant in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in rule 15. (14) On the date fixed for the inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or on behalf of the disciplinary authority. The witnesses shall be examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the Government servant. The Presenting Officer shall be entitled to reexamine the witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the inquiring authority. The inquiring authority may also put such questions to the witnesses as it thinks fit. Page No.# 10/20 (17) The evidence on behalf of the Government servant shall then be produced. The Government servant may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross- examination, re-examination and examination by the inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority. (b) Rules 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rule lays down the following procedure: “(2) The disciplinary authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of inquiring authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the disciplinary authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant.” 12] The UGC Regulation of 2015 is also required to be referred here at this stage. Regulation 7 & 8 of the said regulation is extracted below: “7. Process of making complaint of sexual harassment - An aggrieved person is required to submit a written complaint to the ICC within three months from the date of the incident and in case of a series of incidents within a period of three months from the date of the last incident. Provided that where such complaint cannot be made in writing, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee shall render all reasonable assistance to the person for making the complaint in writing: Provided further that the ICC may, for the reasons to be accorded in the writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months, if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the person from filing a complaint within the said period." Friends, relatives, Colleagues, Co-students, Psychologist, or any other associate of the victim may file the complaint in situations where the aggrieved person is unable to make a complaint on account of physical or mental in capacity or death. 8. 8. Process of conducting Inquiry- (1) The ICC shall, upon receipt of the complaint, send one copy of the complaint to the respondent within a period of seven days of such receipt. (2) Upon receipt of the copy of the complaint, the respondent shall file his or her reply to the complaint along with the list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses within a period of ten days. Page No.# 11/20 (3) The inquiry has to be completed within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the complaint. The inquiry report, with recommendations, if any, has to be submitted within ten days from the completion of the inquiry to the Executive Authority of the HEI. Copy of the findings or recommendations shall also be served on both parties to the complaint. (4) The Executive Authority of the HEI shall act on the recommendations of the committee within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the inquiry report, unless an appeal against the findings is filed within that time by either party. (5) An appeal against the findings or /recommendations of the ICC may be filed by either party before the Executive Authority of the HEI within a period of thirty days from the date of the recommendations. (6) If the Executive Authority of the HEI decides not to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then it shall record written reasons for the same to be conveyed to ICC and both the parties to the proceedings. If on the other hand it is decided to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then a show cause notice, answerable within ten days, shall be served on the party against whom action is decided to be taken. The Executive Authority of the HEI shall proceed only after considering the reply or hearing the aggrieved person. (7) The aggrieved party may seek conciliation in order to settle the matter. No monetary settlement should be made as a basis of conciliation. The HEI shall facilitate a conciliation process through ICC, as the case may be, once it is sought. The resolution of the conflict to the full satisfaction of the aggrieved party wherever possible, is preferred to purely punitive intervention. (8) The identities of the aggrieved party or victim or the witness or the offender shall not be made public or kept in the public domain especially during the process of the inquiry.” 13] Upon perusal of the records which are produced before the Court as also the pleadings available on case record and upon due consideration of the submissions made particularly, the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents, who fairly submitted that the records do not indicate as to whether the witnesses were examined by the petitioner or examined in presence of the petitioner. It is clear that when proceedings are initiated against the delinquent employee more particularly which culminates in imposition of major penalty, the procedure prescribed under the law is to be strictly adhered Page No.# 12/20 to. 14] The procedure as to how the enquiry is to be conducted is laid down in the CCS (CCA) Rules. Pursuant to the enactment of the Act of 2013, the CCS (CCA) Rules underwent an amendment and a power was given on the ICC to make the necessary enquiry and pass appropriate orders including imposition of major penalty. No separate enquiry is required for imposition of major penalty in cases where allegation of sexual harassment is alleged against the delinquent officer. Under such circumstances, the ICC is required to follow the Rules laid down under CCS (CCS) Rules as also by the statute which is the Act of 2013. That apart, the respondent authority being an university and higher learning institution is required to strictly follow the norms, guidelines and regulations issued by the UGC from time to time. In the context of sexual harassment, the UGC has framed the UGC Regulations of 2015, which also clearly replicates the procedure prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules read with the Act of 2013 which has been extracted above. Under such circumstances, the question before the Court is whether non-furnishing of the enquiry report as also the procedure being violated would cause prejudice to the delinquent employee which would fall for interference with the proceedings initiated. 15] The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the following judgments in support of their contentions: (a) In Mohd. Ramzan Khan v. Union of India reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 the Apex Court held that a delinquent government employee has a right to Page No.# 13/20 receive a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes a final decision on the charges, and that non-supply of this report violates the principles of natural justice. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: “3. Sub-article (2) of Article 311 in the original Constitution read thus: “311. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him;” The effect of this provision came to be considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem Chand v. Union of India [1958 SCR 1080 : AIR 1958 SC 300 : (1959) 1 LLJ 167] . The learned Chief Justice traced the history of the growth of the service jurisprudence relating to security of the civil service in the country beginning from the Government of India Act of 1915 followed by Section 240 of the Government of India Act of 1935. This Court on that occasion also noticed the judgments of the Privy Council in the cases of R. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State for India [64 IA 55 : AIR 1937 PC 31] , High Commissioner for India v. I.M. Lall [75 IA 225 : AIR 1948 PC 121] and the judgment of the Federal Court in Secretary of State for India v. I.M. Lall [1945 FCR 103 : AIR 1945 FC 47] and summed up the meaning of ‘reasonable opportunity’ thus: (SCR pp. 1096-97) “The reasonable opportunity envisaged by the provision under consideration includes— (a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence, which he can only do if he is told what the charges levelled against him are and the allegations on which such charges are based; (b) an opportunity to defend himself by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him and by examining himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence; and finally (c) an opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted on him, which he can only do if the competent authority, after the enquiry is over and after applying his mind to the gravity or otherwise of the charges proved against the government servant tentatively proposed to inflict one of the three punishments and communicates the same to the government servant.” 15. Deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of Article 311(2) of the Constitution has nothing to do with providing of a copy of the report to the delinquent in the matter of making his representation. Even though the second stage of the inquiry in Article 311(2) has been abolished by amendment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer holding that the charges or some of the charges are established and holding the delinquent guilty of such charges. For doing away with the effect of the enquiry report or to meet the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer in the matter of imposition of punishment, furnishing a copy of the report becomes necessary and to have the proceeding completed by using some material behind the back of the delinquent is a position not countenanced by fair procedure. While by law application of natural justice could be totally ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronouncements of this Court making rules of natural justice applicable to such an inquiry are not affected by the Forty-second Amendment. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendation, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The Forty-second Amendment has not brought about any change in this position. 18. We make it clear that wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a Page No.# 14/20 copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter.” (b) The relevant paragraphs of Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others reported (2024) 1 SCC 632 extracted below: 57. After the passage of fifteen years from the date of the verdict delivered in Vishaka case [Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 932] , the PoSH Act, was legislated on 22-4-2013 and finally notified on 9-12-2013. The Act lays down a comprehensive mechanism for constitution of Internal Complaints Committee, Local Committee and Internal Committees, the manner of conducting an inquiry into a complaint received, duties of an employer, duties and powers of the District Officer and others, penalties for non- compliance of the provisions of the Act, etc. Accompanying the Act are the 2013 Rules [ The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013] that have been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 29 of the PoSH Act and amongst others, lays down the manner in which an inquiry into a complaint of sexual harassment ought to be conducted (Rule 7), the interim reliefs that can be extended to the aggrieved women during the pendency of the inquiry (Rule 8), the manner of taking action for sexual harassment (Rule 9), etc. It is noteworthy that sub-rule (3) of Rule 7 provides that the respondent shall file his reply to the complaint within a stipulated time along with the relevant documents and give details of the witnesses and sub-rule (4) stipulates that the Complaints Committee shall make an inquiry into the complaints “in accordance with the principles of natural justice”. 58. Thus, it can be seen that the journey from Vishaka case [Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 932] that acted as a springboard and sowed the seeds of future legislation by structuring Guidelines to deal with cases of sexual harassment, blossomed into a comprehensive legislation with the enactment of the PoSH Act and Rules. At the same time, however women-centric the Guidelines and the Act may have been, they both recognise the fact that any inquiry into a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace must be in accordance with the relevant rules and in line with the principles of natural justice. 59. The cardinal principle required to be borne in mind is that the person accused of misconduct must be informed of the case, must be supplied the evidence in support thereof and be given a reasonable opportunity to present his version before any adverse decision is taken. Similarly, the employer concerned is also expected to act fairly and adopt a procedure that is just, fair and reasonable. The whole purpose is to breathe reasonableness into the procedural regime. But, the test of reasonableness cannot be abstract. It has to be pragmatic and grounded in the realities of the facts and circumstances of a case. 60. When conducting an inquiry, it is the duty of the inquiring authority to proceed in a manner that is visibly free from the taint of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. An inquiry Page No.# 15/20 that can culminate into imposition of a major penalty like termination of service of an employee, must doubly conform to a just, fair and reasonable procedure. Any displacement of the principles of natural justice can only be in exceptional circumstances, as contemplated in the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and not otherwise. Wherever the rules are silent, principles of natural justice must be read into them and a hearing be afforded to the person who is proposed to be punished with a major penalty [SBI v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty, (2018) 12 SCC 807 : (2018) 2 SCC (L&S) 418] . 65. Assuming as correct, the submission made by the learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3 that the Committee was not bound to strictly follow a step-by-step procedure for conducting an inquiry having due regard to the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules that permits a committee to enquire into a complaint of sexual harassment “as far as practicable”, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules, the question that would still beg an answer is whether the inquiry conducted by the Committee in the instant case, would meet the “as far as practicable” norm? 73. 73. The undue haste demonstrated by the Committee for bringing the inquiry to a closure, cannot justify curtailment of the right of the appellant to a fair hearing. The due process, an important facet of the principles of natural justice was seriously compromised due to the manner in which the Committee went about the task of conducting the inquiry proceedings. As noted above, when the proceedings, subject-matter of the present appeal had taken place, the PoSH Act was nowhere on the horizon and the field was occupied by the Vishaka [Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 932] Guidelines. The said Guidelines also did not exclude application of the principles of natural justice and fair play in making procedural compliances. The silence in the Guidelines on this aspect could not have given a handle to the Committee to bypass the principles of natural justice and whittle down a reasonable opportunity of affording a fair hearing to the appellant. This Court has repeatedly observed that even when the rules are silent, principles of natural justice must be read into them. 74. In its keen anxiety of being fair to the victims/complainants and wrap up the complaints expeditiously, the Committee has ended up being grossly unfair to the appellant. It has completely overlooked the cardinal principle that justice must not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done. The principles of audi alteram partem could not have been thrown to the winds in this cavalier manner.” 16] In Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank & Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Apex Court held that mere production or tendering of documents before the Enquiry Officer does not by itself prove their contents. The documents must be duly proved through competent witnesses particularly where their contents are disputed and the documents relate to or emanate from a particular witness. Page No.# 16/20 Such witness must be examined and the delinquent employee must be afforded an effective opportunity to cross-examine him. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.” 17] Considering the issues involved and upon due perusal of the pleadings available, it is seen that there are lacunas in the procedure which was adopted by the ICC while conducting the enquiry and concluding by imposition of a major penalty like compulsory retirement of the writ petitioner. The celebrated judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar and Ors. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 has laid down that non- supply of the enquiry report is a serious lacuna which will prejudice the delinquent employee to know the reasons as to the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: “25. While the right to represent against the findings in the report is part of the reasonable opportunity available during the first stage of the inquiry viz., before the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings in the report, the right to show cause against the penalty proposed belongs to the second stage when the disciplinary authority has considered the findings in the report and has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the employee and proposes to award penalty on the basis of its conclusions. The first right is the right to prove innocence. The second right is to plead for either no penalty or a lesser penalty although the conclusion regarding the guilt is accepted. It is the second right exercisable at the second stage which was taken away by the Forty-second Amendment. 26. The reason why the right to receive the report of the enquiry officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural Page No.# 17/20 justice is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is negation of the tenets of justice and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to consider the findings recorded by a third party like the enquiry officer without giving the employee an opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings recorded by the enquiry officer along with the evidence on record. In the circumstances, the findings of the enquiry officer do constitute an important material before the disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its conclusions. If the enquiry officer were only to record the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary authority, that would not constitute any additional material before the disciplinary authority of which the delinquent employee has no knowledge. However, when the enquiry officer goes further and records his findings, as stated above, which may or may not be based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an additional material unknown to the employee but are taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority while arriving at its conclusions. Both the dictates of the reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of natural justice, therefore, require that before the disciplinary authority comes to its own conclusions, the delinquent employee should have an opportunity to reply to the enquiry officer's findings. The disciplinary authority is then required to consider the evidence, the report of the enquiry officer and the representation of the employee against it. 27. It will thus be seen that where the enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends when the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions on the basis of the evidence, enquiry officer's report and the delinquent employee's reply to it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its conclusions. If the disciplinary authority decides to drop the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not even reached. The employee's right to receive the report is thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the first stage of the inquiry. If this right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to defend himself and to prove his innocence in the disciplinary proceedings. 29. Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That right is a part of the employee's right to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. A denial of the enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges, is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of natural justice. Page No.# 18/20 61. It is now settled law that the proceedings must be just, fair and reasonable and negation thereof offends Articles 14 and 21. It is well-settled law that the principles of natural justice are integral part of Article 14. No decision prejudicial to a party should be taken without affording an opportunity or supplying the material which is the basis for the decision. The enquiry report constitutes fresh material which has great persuasive force or effect on the mind of the disciplinary authority. The supply of the report along with the final order is like a post-mortem certificate with putrefying odour. The failure to supply copy thereof to the delinquent would be unfair procedure offending not only Articles 14, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution, but also, the principles of natural justice. The contention on behalf of the Government/management that the report is not evidence adduced during such inquiry envisaged under proviso to Article 311(2) is also devoid of substance. It is settled law that the Evidence Act has no application to the inquiry conducted during the disciplinary proceedings. The evidence adduced is not in strict conformity with the Indian Evidence Act, though the essential principles of fair play envisaged in the Evidence Act are applicable. What was meant by ‘evidence’ in the proviso to Article 311(2) is the totality of the material collected during the inquiry including the report of the enquiry officer forming part of that material. Therefore, when reliance is sought to be placed by the disciplinary authority, on the report of the enquiry officer for proof of the charge or for imposition of the penalty, then it is incumbent that the copy thereof should be supplied before reaching any conclusion either on proof of the charge or the nature of the penalty to be imposed on the proved charge or on both.” 18] In view of the mandate of the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) it was incumbent on the respondents to furnish a copy of the conclusion arrived at along with the tentative reasons so that he may have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority against the imposition of major penalty, this specific procedure was not followed. Where the procedure prescribed by a statute is not followed or not adhered to by the authority that is supposed to follow in terms of the statute, it does not reflect the procedural fairness required to be adopted mandatorily by the authorities concerned. The procedural unfairness would be an instance of arbitrariness for which this Court would issue a writ in given circumstances. There is another aspect of the matter that the Act of 2013 prescribes for an appellate forum. According to the conditions, no appeal could have been preferred in the absence of any certified copy of the enquiry report being furnished on the petitioner. Page No.# 19/20 19] It is clear that the procedure prescribed under law was not followed and thereby, absence of the fair procedure itself is a ground which exposes the respondent authority to the vice of arbitrariness. Considering the gravity of the allegations made against the writ petitioner, this Court remands the matter back to the ICC to initiate the proceedings afresh, by following the procedure prescribed under the statute of the Act of 2013, read with the CCS (CCA) Rules and also the UGC Regulations of 2015. The petitioner will appear before the ICC as and when informed. The contact numbers and the email addresses of the writ petitioner be made available to the respondent authority. In the event of any change thereof, the petitioner will intimate the university authority of such changes. Let this enquiry be conducted within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 20] Needless to say any such order that may be passed, the copies thereof shall be served on the petitioner. 21] Considering the fact that the matter has been remanded back to the university authorities for afresh decision, the impugned order of compulsory retirement is set aside. 22] Meanwhile, considering the allegations made, the petitioner will be treated to be under suspension and the authorities shall ensure that the petitioner will not be given a residence within the Diphu Campus of Assam University in where the complainants are reside and further, any arrear salary prior to the order of compulsory retirement as also his subsistence allowances as may be receivable Page No.# 20/20 be released without further delay. 23] This writ petition accordingly stands disposed in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant