Madras HC: Disciplinary Authority is bound by the findings of the Internal Committee

Case Description 

Samuel Tennyson v. Principal & Secretary, MCC 

Madras High Court 

Case Type: Writ Appeal 

Case No.: Writ Appeal No.2962 of 2019 & W.P.No.5140 of 2020, CMP.No.19207 of 2019 & WMP No.6070 of 2020 

Date of Order: 30.04.2024 

Bench: R. Suresh Kumar, J. & K. Kumaresh Babu, J. (authored by K. Kumaresh Babu, J.) 

Facts 

1. Appellant had been working as an Assistant Professor in Zoology Department in the college. The college had arranged for a study tour for students of the said department; 42 students participated and were accompanied by seven teaching faculty, including the appellant. 

2. After two months, the college levelled allegations on the appellant and one Dr. Raveen for sexually harassing 34 girl students and initiated proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (“Act”).  

3. The Internal Committee (“IC”) conducted an inquiry and concluded against the respondent, leading to a show-cause notice being issued to the respondent on 24^th May 2019.  

4. Upon receiving such notice, the respondent filed a writ petition in Madras High Court and sought quashing of the notice and the report of the IC. He raised the ground of violation of natural justice principles during the inquiry proceedings. A Single Judge Bench upheld the report of the committee.  

5. Unsuccessful in the first attempt, the respondent filed an Intra Court Appeal challenging the order of dismissal issued by the college. 

Issues 

1. Whether an order of dismissal, passed by an employer in pursuance of an Internal Committee’s Findings Report, is illegal or irregular, if no departmental inquiry is conducted after the committee’s inquiry? 

Laws Involved 

1. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act 2013 and its Rules. 

2. Rule 11 (2)(l) of Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules 197 

Appellant’s Arguments 

1. The appellant was surprised when the college initiated an enquiry under the Act and submitted his explanation to the committee, denying all allegations. The appellant argued that the IC proceedings were in violation of natural justice principles. 

2. He submitted that he was made to wait outside when the complainant’s statements were recorded and at the end he was called inside and questioned by the IC. Moreover, he was not afforded the chance to cross examine the complainant and their witnesses.  

3. The appellant alleged that one of the complainants, who was the only person to speak against him, had done so out of revenge as he had not signed her record note which was submitted beyond time limit.  

4. In furtherance, the appellant mentioned that he was unaware of the allegations made against him in the complaint as he was neither served with the copies of complaints nor statements of the witnesses.  

5. He further contended that he had sought for the copies of complaints and statements through a letter dated 29.04.2019. He received various documents from the college and then made a demand a re-inquiry on 20.05.2019 with permission to mark additional documents and reopen examination of his witnesses. This demand was denied by the college through a notice dated 24.05.2019 and he was issued a second show-cause notice with a proposal for his dismissal.  

6. The appellant’s counsel argued that the second show cause notice issued by disciplinary authority opposes all canons of service jurisprudence as no charge memo had been issued to him to indicate charges against him and no enquiry officer had been appointed to conduct an inquiry. 

7. Moreover, he contended that despite the stay of the order passed by the Single Judge, he was not allowed to join the duty on the pretext that his dismissal order was passed immediately after disposal of his writ petition. Hence, the respondent preferred a Writ Appeal challenging the dismissal order. 

8. Appellant additionally brought to the court’s attention an order dated 04.03.2019 whereby he was given a warning and thereafter was not assigned any task related to valuation of answer scripts or internal numbers. He was also banned from accompanying students for 3 years on study trips. This order was passed without any inquiry. The counsel, thus, argued that the second show cause notice issued post the second inquiry was based on same set of charges and therefore amounted to double jeopardy.  

9. The appellant challenged the legitimacy of the report as being passed in violation of principles of natural justice and legality of the termination notice on the ground that it was solely passed based on IC report and no departmental proceedings were held against him. Thus, the second show-cause notice was against service rules. For these contentions, he relied on Dr.Vijayakumaran C.P.V., vs. Central University of Kerala [(2020) 12 SCC 426] and Manonmanium Sundaranar University vs. Dr.P.Govindaraju (2022) 3 CTC 465. 

10. In conclusion, he highlighted that IC was only a fact finding body and for a termination to have occurred through the second show-cause notice, inquiry proceedings must have been conducted by his department.  

Respondent’s (MCC) Arguments 

1. The college warned the respondent and stopped entrusting him with certain duties on receiving complaints of sexual harassment. This cannot be treated as an order of punishment. Thereafter, an IC was constituted to proceed with the inquiry into the received complaints.  

2. The show cause notice issued to the respondent was enclosed with the complaints received from concerned students. Hence, his contention of not receiving the complaints went contrary to his written response dated 01.04.2019. Further, it was submitted by the counsel that the appellant was allowed to have Advocate’s assistance throughout the inquiry; so, there wasn’t any instance of recording statements in absence of him or his counsel.  

3. In furtherance, the counsel highlighted that all witnesses were examined in the presence of the appellant or of his counsel. Moreover, the appellant had admitted that at the end of the enquiry, he had signed the record of the proceedings.  

4. No objection against non-supply of complaints/statements of witnesses were raised at the initial stage of inquiry. 

5. It was submitted that there were no procedural lapses as the terms & conditions of the appellant was covered by the agreement with the college; that agreement provided for an opportunity for personal hearing.  

6. The respondent’s counsel relied on Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors, vs. UOI & Ors., [(2013) 1 SCC 297] where the Apex Court had held that the report of IC will be report of an inquiry officer appointed under provisions of service rules and based on such report the Disciplinary Authority can pass orders.  

7. It is further contended with reference to the Act, that where there are no service rules, the IC itself can make recommendations for punishment if the respondent is found guilty.  

8. As the second show cause notice was issued in pursuance of the IC’s finding report, which was also upheld by the Single Judge Bench, the counsel for respondent submitted that there was no illegality or infirmity in the order of dismissal. 

Respondent 2’s (IC) Arguments 

1. The IC was constituted to deal with the complaints received against the appellant and the Convenor of the Committee had forwarded all necessary documents to the appellant when he was contacted for his written response. The appellant’s written response to the forwarded communication had also been received.  

2. The IC had conducted a detailed inquiry, and the appellant was present in all examinations of witnesses, except one as a request for deposing in absence of appellant was made by the complainant. However, appellant’s counsel was present in that deposition. So, the appellant was asked to wait outside the room for that duration and then allowed to come inside and do the cross examination; the same was recorded by the Committee. 

3. IC had conducted the inquiry on 06. 04.2019 and 09.04.2019. It submitted its report on 17.04.2019. The appellant could have immediately raised his objection against non-supply of complaints or statements, but he did not do so.  

4. Lastly, the respondent’s counsel submitted that post recording of statements by respective students, the IC submitted a detailed report to the college and recommended initiation of disciplinary action against the appellant. There were no procedural lapses or violations of natural justice principle, and the original copies of documents were submitted before the court to substantiate the same.  

Impleaded Party’s Statement 

1. The complainant in the complaint against the appellant submitted that the narration made before the Committee was based on true facts and therefore, he supported the case of respondents in the matter.  

Court’s Analysis 

1. After perusing the respondent’s written response, it was observed that he had submitted his response to each and every paragraph of the complaint. Therefore, it is evident that the allegation of not receiving the copy of the complaint earlier is false.  

2. The Court went through the files of the original proceedings and found that statement of every witness and cross examination of delinquent parties were present on record. Based on the fact-finding report and the statements that were examined, it concluded that there had been no violation of natural justice principles. The appellant was provided ample opportunity to be heard and no argument to the contrary can hold true. 

3. With reference to the appellant’s argument about the charge memo and departmental inquiry, the Court referred to the provision of the Act, its Rules, and the judgement of Vishaka and Ors., vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., [(1997) 6 SCC 24] and Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. It was noted that the employment of the appellant with MCC is governed by an agreement as envisaged under Sub-Rule 2(I) of Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules 1976. Under its clause 7, procedure for action to be initiated, punishment, and personal hearing are provided.  

4. A conjoint reading of the Medha Kotwal case along with Union of India & Ors., vs. Dilip Paul [2023 SCC Online SC 1423] and Sakshi vs. Union of India [(2004) 5 SCC 518] led to the observation that the if IC is treated as a mere fact-finding body, then its finding would reduce to a recording machine.  

Conclusion 

1. It was held that the Disciplinary Authority is bound by the findings of fact by the Internal Committee (IC). The IC is a fact-finding authority, and its report is held to be a report of inquiry authority. Hence, in this case, the college can initiate a disciplinary action based on such report.  

2. Where service rules apply, IC is treated as the inquiring authority and in such cases, an inquiry officer need not separately be appointed. The IC proceedings will be treated as disciplinary proceedings. 

3. If the arguments of appellant are to be accepted, it would create a situation were the victims have to again narrate and substantiate their case before another authority.  

4. Thus, the Court dismissed the Writ Appeal, as well as the Writ Petition.  

By – Ayush Bardhan, Trainee Associate, The Legal Swan