Can Ad-hoc committee suspend a person during inquiry of sexual harassment?: asks Delhi HC

New Delhi [India], October 8 (ANI): Can an Ad-hoc committee suspend a person who is facing allegations of sexual harrasment during an ongoing inquiry, the Delhi High Court has asked the counsel for Ramanujan College of the University of Delhi.
The University, the college and the victim have moved petitions against the interim stay granted on the suspension of Professor Rasal Singh, principal of Ramanujan College.
The division bench headed by Justice Subramonium Prasad asked senior counsel Bansuri Swaraj, representing for Ramanujan College, to take instructions on the point raised by the bench.
The matter has been listed for hearing on this point tomorrow.

During the hearing, it was submitted that the suspension is not a punitive action. The committee has the right to action as per the ordinance of the University.
On the other hand, senior advocate Geeta Luthra contended that the person facing allegations cannot be suspended during the inquiry as it is a kind of punishment.
The University of Delhi has moved to the Delhi High Court against the interim stay granted on the suspension of Ramanujan College's Principal Rasal Singh.
On September 26, the Delhi High Court had granted an interim stay on the suspension of Professor Rasal over the allegations of sexual harrasment levelled by three women teachers. The High court noted that petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard before his suspension.
Three petitions, moved by University, Ramanujan College and, the complainant have moved against the stay order passed by the single bench.
University of Delhi Has sought a direction to set aside the stay order passed by the single bench. It is also prayed that operation of September 26 order may be stayed till the petition against the order is pending. The stay order has been challenged on the ground that it is patently not sustainable in the eyes of law and service jurisprudence and same is therefore liable to be set aside.
It is also contended that the stay order has been passed against the well laid down principle of law governing suspension by the concerned Disciplinary Authority due to serious allegation of sexual harassment at workplace, before initiating the inquiry proceedings as per the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Work Place (POSH) Act, 2013 and UGC Regulations, 2015.
The Disciplinary Authority in the interest and safety of the Women Faculty members were fully competent to suspend Rasal Singh with immediate effect as per clause (9) of ordinance XVIII (7) of the Delhi University Act, 1922, its Statue and Ordinances.
It is also stated that the single Judge passed the order of September 26 in undue haste and against the well laid down principle of law that order of suspension pending inquiry is non-punitive in nature. The Authority entitled to appoint would also be entitled to suspend a person pending inquiry into his conduct.
On September 26, Justice Sachin Datta had granted interim stay on suspension order of Professor Rasal Singh till the next date of hearing noting that before passing the order of suspension the petitioner was not heard by the committed constituted by Deputy Registrar of colleges.
"Considering that the allegations are to be inquired by the ICC, the determination/recommendation of whether any interim measure is warranted against the petitioner, also necessarily falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ICC," Justice Datta had said.
"On a prima facie conspectus, it is evident that the suspension of the petitioner, even before the allegations levied have been examined/inquired into by the concerned ICC, is unwarranted and has the effect of usurping/circumventing the jurisdiction of the ICC," Justice Datta said in the order.
The bench held, "for all the aforesaid reasons, till the next date of hearing, there shall.be an interim stay on the suspension order dated 23.09.2025, issued by the Chairperson, Ramanujan College, University of Delhi on behalf of Respondent college".
However, the High court made it clear that it shall be for the concerned ICC to consider as to whether any interim measure against the petitioner are warranted, including suspension and/or imposition of any other restrictions.
The High Court requested the concerned ICC to bestow its urgent consideration to the matter and take expeditious decision with regards thereto. Let the inquiry against the petitioner be also expedited, the court said.
The High court observed that "Prima facie, considering the nature of allegations levied against the petitioner, constitution of a committee by the Deputy Registrar of Colleges (Delhi University) through a letter of 05.05.2025 was inapposite inasmuch as the authority to deal with such allegation is the ICC."
" It is also notable that even the said committee did not expressly recommend the suspension of the petitioner," the High court had noted.
The High court also said that the petitioner was not granted an opportunity to be heard.
"Further, it appears from the relevant records produced for the perusal of this Court that the suspension order was passed by respondent (Delhi University) solely relying upon the observations recorded by the aforementioned committee in its report dated 23.06.2025 and evidently without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner," the High court had said in the order.
The single judge bench had also made it clear that If required, during the pendency of the inquiry, ICC shall pass appropriate protective order/s in favour of the respondent (complainants).
The High court had sought a reply from the respondents and listed the matter for hearing on October 15.
The bench had reserved the order on September 26 on the petition moved by Rasal Singh against his suspension order of September 18, 2025.
Senior advocate Geeta Luthra, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that despite the petitioner's distinguished academic career, unblemished service records, and a reputation for discharging his duty with diligence and integrity, he has become a victim of personal vendetta/conspiracy emanating from certain vested interests, which ultimately resulted in the filing of malafide. (ANI)