Natural justice and mandatory committee composition defeat a disciplinary removal based on retracted sexual harassment allegations.

The Madras HC held that a sexual harassment enquiry committee was invalid where the applicable rules required a woman chairperson and at least half women members, but the committee was headed by a male former Vice-Chancellor. It further held that the removal order could not stand because no charge memo was issued, the enquiry report was not supplied before punishment, and the complainant retracted the allegation, leaving the proceedings contrary to natural justice. The disciplinary action was therefore set aside, and reinstatement with consequential benefits followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the enquiry committee was validly constituted under the applicable sexual harassment guidelines and conduct rules. (ii) Whether the removal order could be sustained when no charge memo was issued, the complainant disowned the allegation of sexual harassment, and the enquiry proceeded without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity.

Issue (i): Whether the enquiry committee was validly constituted under the applicable sexual harassment guidelines and conduct rules.

Analysis: The complaint was treated as a sexual harassment matter even though the complainant later clarified that she had not faced sexual harassment and merely referred to a verbal quarrel. The applicable rule required the complaints committee to be headed by a woman and to have not less than half its members as women. The committee in question was headed by a male former Vice-Chancellor, which did not satisfy the mandatory composition requirement.

Conclusion: The enquiry committee was not validly constituted and the objection to its composition was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the removal order could be sustained when no charge memo was issued, the complainant disowned the allegation of sexual harassment, and the enquiry proceeded without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity.

Analysis: No charge memo was issued to the petitioner, no copy of the enquiry report was furnished before imposing punishment, and the complainant did not support the allegation on which the proceedings were founded. The disciplinary authority also acted without properly testing whether the case was one of trivial conduct rather than a case warranting proceedings under the sexual harassment framework. These lapses amounted to a clear violation of natural justice.

Conclusion: The removal order could not be sustained and was liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary action was set aside, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits, and the writ petition challenging the punishment succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary penalty based on sexual harassment allegations cannot be sustained when the mandatory committee composition is violated, the complainant retracts the allegation, and the proceedings are conducted without a charge memo, enquiry report supply, or other basic safeguards of natural justice.

---