DR. VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V. versus CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 374 · Decided: 28-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
DR. VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V.
v.
CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF KERALA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 777 of 2020)
JANUARY 28, 2020
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, HEMANT GUPTA AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Service Law:
Termination of service – Of University Associate Professor
on probation – Pursuant to report of Internal Complaints Committee
which was constituted on complaints regarding sexual harassment
of female students – Appellant assailed the termination order on
the ground that it was stigmatic – Single Judge as well as Division
Bench of High Court construed the termination order as termination
simplcitor – Appeal to Supreme Court: Held: From the tenor of the
termination order it is evident that it is ex- facie stigmatic and punitive
– Such an order could be issued only after subjecting the incumbent
to a regular inquiry as per service Rules – Therefore, the termination
order is illegal – Incumbent is directed to be reinstated – University
Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual
Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher
Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2005 – Regulations 5 and 8.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Going by the tenor of the order of termination, it
is incomprehensible as to how the same can be construed as
termination simplictor, when it has made the report of the inquiry
conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee and the decision
of the Executive Council dated 30.11.2017 as the foundation, in
addition to the ground of academic performance. Had it been a
case of mere unsatisfactory academic performance, the situation
would have been entirely different. The appellant has been
subjected to a formal inquiry before the Committee constituted
under statutory regulations to inquire into the allegations
bordering on moral turpitude or misconduct committed by the
appellant and that inquiry culminated in a finding of guilt against
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 374
374
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
375
the appellant with recommendation of the Executive Council to
proceed against the appellant as per the service rules. In such a
situation, it is unfathomable to construe the order as order of
termination simplicitor. [Para 7][382-F-H; 383-A-B]
2. The material which amounts to stigma need not be
contained in the order of termination of the probationer, but might
be contained in “any document referred to in the termination
order”. Such reference may inevitably affect the future prospects
of the incumbent and if so, the order must be construed as ex-
facie stigmatic order of termination. [Para 8][383-C-D]
3.1 One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether
in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether
prior to the termination there was (a) a full-scale formal enquiry
(b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which
(c) culminated in a finding of guilt. In the present case, all the
three elements are attracted, as a result of which it must follow
that the stated order is ex-facie stigmatic and punitive. Such an
order could be issued only after subjecting the incumbent to a
regular inquiry as per the service rules. [Para 9][385-G-H;
386-A-B]
4. Upon receipt of complaints from aggrieved women (girl
students of the University) about the sexual harassment at
workplace (in this case, University campus), it was obligatory on
the Administration to refer such complaints to the Internal
Committee or the Local Committee, within the stipulated time
period as predicated in Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013. Upon receipt of such complaint, an inquiry is required
to be undertaken by the Internal Committee or the Local
Committee in conformity with the stipulations in Section 11 of
the 2013 Act. The procedure for conducting such inquiry has also
been amplified in the University Grants Commission (Prevention,
Prohibition and Rederessal of Sexual Harassment of Women
Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions)
Regulations 2015. Thus understood, it necessarily follows that
the inquiry is a formal inquiry required to be undertaken in terms
of the 2015 Regulations. The allegations to be inquired into by
DR. VIJAYAKUMARAN C.P.V. v. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF
KERALA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
376
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
such Committee being of “sexual harassment” defined in Section
2(n) read with Section 3 of the 2013 Act and being a serious ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.