Dr Vijayakumaran CPV v. Central University of Kerala and others (2020)

Introduction 

In this significant case, the Supreme Court examined whether termination of a probationer based on findings of an Internal Complaints Committee inquiry under the POSH Act constituted simple termination or stigmatic termination. 

• The judgment clarifies that allegations of sexual harassment, being serious in nature and bordering on criminality, cannot be disposed of through simple termination orders but must be followed by regular departmental inquiry as per service rules. 
• The Court reinforced procedural safeguards for employees facing such grave allegations while upholding the integrity of the POSH framework.

Facts

• The Appellant, Dr. Vijayakumaran CPV, was appointed as Associate Professor in the Department of Hindi at Central University of Kerala with effect from 12.6.2017. 
• His appointment was on probation for twelve months, extendable by another twelve months, with provisions allowing termination if found unsuitable. 
• Shortly after joining, three complaints were filed against him by female students on 13.7.2017, 14.7.2017, and 29.8.2017. 
• The University constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the UGC Regulations, 2015 to inquire into these complaints. 
• The ICC conducted an inquiry and submitted a report finding the complaints genuine and consistent, concluding that the accused had committed sexual offences against girl students. 
• The Executive Council, in its meeting on 30.11.2017, considered the ICC report and resolved to terminate his services forthwith, recording that he had committed serious misconduct bringing disrepute to the University. 
• The termination order explicitly referenced the ICC report and the EC's decision regarding his unsuitability for continuation. 
• The Appellant challenged the termination before the High Court of Kerala, which upheld the termination. 
• Aggrieved, the Appellant approached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 777 of 2020.

Issue Involved 

• Whether the termination order based on ICC findings of sexual harassment constituted termination simpliciter or was ex-facie stigmatic, and whether it required a regular departmental inquiry despite the probationary status?

Court’s Observations 

On Nature of Termination: 

• The Supreme Court held that the termination was ex-facie stigmatic because it explicitly referenced the ICC report finding serious misconduct. 
• Stigma can arise from documents referenced in the termination order, not just the order itself. 

On Punitive Element: 

• The Court found all three elements for punitive termination present: a formal ICC inquiry under statutory regulations, allegations involving moral turpitude (sexual harassment), and a finding of guilt. 

On POSH Act Requirements: 

• The Court emphasized that sexual harassment allegations border on criminality under the 2013 Act and cannot be concluded through simple termination. 
• Such complaints must be taken to their logical conclusion through regular departmental inquiry as per service rules, allowing the employee full opportunity to establish innocence. 
• The EC incorrectly believed that probationary status permitted termination without regular formal inquiry. 

Ratio Decidendi: 

• Where a formal statutory inquiry under the POSH Act finds a probationer guilty of serious misconduct, the termination is punitive and necessitates a mandatory regular departmental inquiry before dismissal.

Conclusion 

The Supreme Court set aside the termination order dated 30.11.2017, declaring it illegal as it was stigmatic and issued without regular inquiry. The Court directed reinstatement of the appellant, leaving consequential matters including back wages and initiating departmental inquiry to be decided by the University authority. This ruling establishes that serious POSH Act allegations require full procedural safeguards through regular departmental inquiry, regardless of probationary status.