NATIONAL FORENSIC SCIENCE UNIVERSITY Vs. DEEPAK CHETANDAS RAWTANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been filed by the National Forensic Science University and its Vice-Chancellor with a prayer that the order dtd. 20/2/2024 and the CAV judgement dtd. 22/3/2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 17470 of 2023 be quashed and set aside.

(2.) The respondent no. 1 filed the captioned petition before the learned Single Judge praying that the order dtd. 25/8/2023 passed by the Vice-Chancellor in an appeal filed under Regulation 8(5) of the University Grants Commission (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 (for short 'Regulations, 2015') be quashed and set aside.

(3.) Mr. Dhaval Dave, learned Senior Advocate appears with Mr. Udit Vyas, learned advocate for the appellant. Taking us through the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 20/2/2024 and the CAV judgement dtd. 22/3/2024, Mr. Dave would submit that the learned Single Judge committed an error in interpreting Regulations 8 and 10 of the Regulations, 2015 inasmuch as learned Single Judge opined that the order of punishment was bad as, no show-cause notice to the offender was issued. He would take us through the Regulations especially Regulations 8(4), 8(5) and 8(6) to submit that if the regulations are read, clause 4 of Regulation 8 indicated that the Executive Authority shall act on the recommendations of the Committee within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the inquiry report unless an appeal against the findings is filed within that time by the either party. He would submit that an appeal had to be filed against the findings or recommendations as set out in clause 5 of Regulation 8. Reading Regulation 8(6), he would submit that clause 6 had to be read in conjunction with clause 4 of Regulation 8 inasmuch as in absence of an appeal being filed as required under clause 4, the Executive Authority would act on the recommendations and if it decided to do so, then a show-cause notice had to be served on the party. In other words, he would submit that it was only in cases where no appeal was filed would the necessity of issuing a show-cause notice would arise. He had further submitted that when the appeal was heard in the case of the respondent herein an opportunity of hearing itself was provided in the appeal and therefore a show-cause notice was not so required.