Disposed

Dr Pramod Ranjan v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Gauhati HC11 Jun 2026WP(C)/3051/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged disciplinary proceedings under the CCS (CCA) Rules initiated on the basis of an ICC report he was never furnished, contending violation of natural justice and denial of the Section 18 POSH appeal. The court declined to interfere at the nascent inquiry stage but permitted him to file the appeal within ten days, with a stay on proceedings until 07.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file Section 18 POSH appeal within 10 days; Appellate Authority to decide expeditiously by 07.07.2026 with hearing; proceedings stayed till then.

Dr Pramod Ranjan Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010114622026

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/3051/2026

¶6

DR PRAMOD RANJAN

¶7

S/O MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH, PERMANENT R/O TEACHERS COLONY, KUMHRAR, PATNA, PIN - 800026, DISTRICT- PATNA, BIHAR. PRESENT ADDRESS- HOUSING BOARD COLONY DIPHU, DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782460

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAWAM, NEW DELHI, PIN -110001

¶10

2:THE ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR DORGOKONA SILCHAR DISTRICT -CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788011

¶11

3:THE VICE CHANCELLOR ASSAM UNIVERSITY SILCHAR DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN - 788011 4:THE CHAIRPERSON INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE (ICC) ASSAM UNIVERSITY

¶12

Page No.# 2/8

¶13

SILCHAR DISTRICT - CACHAR ASSAM PIN -788011 5:THE PRO VICE CHANCELLOR ASSAM UNIVERSITY DIPHU CAMPUS KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU ASSAM 782462 6:THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSAM UNIVERSITY DIPHU CAMPUS KARBI ANGLONG DIPHU ASSAM 782462 7:UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI PIN - 11000

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S MITRA, MR S.MITRA,MR A K BORO,A R ANSARI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, ASSAM UNIVERSITY,SC, U G C

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

12.06.2026

¶19

Heard Mr. S. Mitra learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C.

¶20

Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Assam University assisted by Ms. R. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent; Mr. S. Sarkar, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. S. P. Choudhury, learned CGC for Respondent No. 1;

¶21

Page No.# 3/8

¶22

Ms. P. Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the UGC.

¶23

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned show cause notice dated 05.01.2026, where certain allegations have been levelled against the writ petitioner by initiating a proceeding under the CCS (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The petitioner is aggrieved that the said proceeding is premised on the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), constituted under the POSCH Act, wherein the committee had given a finding attributing involvement to a certain degree on the part of the writ petitioner and made some observations against the writ petitioner, and consequently recommended that the proceedings be initiated against the writ petitioner. It is submitted that the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted to make inquiries into a complaint lodged by the complainant against Dr. Aniruddha Kumar, Associate Professor in the Department of Hindi, Assam University, Diphu Campus. The petitioner was called as a witness during the proceedings, and deposed before the ICC. According to the ICC report, the said Committee concluded that the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid process and was aware of the fact that there a complaint had been made by the complainant against Dr. Aniruddha Kumar. The ICC further observed that the petitioner ought to have taken steps to inform the higher authorities, but he refrained from doing so. Accordingly,

¶24

Page No.# 4/8

¶25

the ICC concluded that the writ petitioner should also be proceeded with under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Pursuant thereto, the impugned show cause notice came to be issued, to which the writ petitioner has filed his reply.

¶26

3. Referring to the provisions of the POSH Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he was entitled to be furnished with a copy of the ICC report. However, the same was never done. The petitioner came to be aware of the ICC report on 05.01.2026. Thereafter, the proceeding was initiated against him; however by order dated 23^rd of February, 2026, the said proceeding was cancelled due to procedural reasons. Subsequently, by order dated 21.04.2026, the proceedings were again reinstituted. It is further submitted that since the ICC report was not available to the writ petitioner at the relevant point in time, and was never served upon him, he could not file an appeal before the Appellate Authority as contemplated under Section 18 of the POSH Act.

¶27

4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire proceedings was initiated against the writ petitioner under the CCS(CCA) Rules, is premised on the report of the ICC, before which the petitioner had appeared and deposed as a witness. There was no allegation of sexual

¶28

Page No.# 5/8

¶29

harassment against the writ petitioner in the complaint lodged by the complainant, nor was the petitioner arrayed as an accused in the proceedings. The petitioner was examined primarily as a witness. However, the ICC concluded that there was misconduct on the part of the petitioner in not informing the higher authorities despite having knowledge of acts of harassment allegedly committed by Dr. Anirudha Kumar. On the basis of such conclusion, a recommendation was made for initiation of proceedings against the writ petitioner under CCS (CCA) Rules. It is further submitted that on account of violation of the principles of natural justice, the proceedings initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules are liable to be interfered with and set aside, and the petitioner be granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 18 of the ICC Rules.

¶30

5. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Assam University, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has already submitted his reply to the proceedings initiated against the writ petitioner, which however is not enclosed to the writ petition. It is further submitted that the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer have already been appointed, and the proceedings pertains to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which, according to the disciplinary authority, amounts to misconduct, and therefore

¶31

Page No.# 6/8

¶32

the proceedings was initiated under the CCS (CCA) Rules. It is contended that,

¶33

at this stage, there is no ground for interference with the said proceedings initiated, as the inquiry itself has not come to conclusion. He, however, submits that the petitioner may file an appeal against the ICC report in terms of Section 18, which is subject to the limitations prescribed therein.

¶34

6. Ms. P. Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the UGC summits that there is a provision for an appeal, which may availed of by the writ petitioner in accordance with law.

¶35

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings available before this Court, this Court is of the view that the prayer for setting aside or interfering with the disciplinary proceedings initiated pursuant to the impugned show cause notice dated 05.01.2026 need not be considered at this stage, as the inquiry is at a nascent stage, and the examination of witnesses has not yet been proceeded with. However, in terms of Section 18 of

¶36

the POSH Act, there is a provision for an appeal against the findings and recommendations of the ICC.

¶37

8. Since the petitioner submits that he be given a liberty to file an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act, at this stage, this Court considers it

¶38

Page No.# 7/8

¶39

appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon such appeal being preferred by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority will examine the matter and thereafter pass appropriate orders therein, as expeditiously as possible within the outer limit of 07.07.2026.

¶40

9. Needless to say, a copy of any order that may be passed by the Appellate Authority shall be served upon the petitioner. It is also directed that the Appellate Authority will give adequate opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner.

¶41

10. The writ petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority and participate in the hearing as is permitted to be conducted by the Appellate Authority.

¶42

11. Till 07.07.2026, the proceedings which were initiated against the writ petitioner pursuant to the show cause notice dated 05.01.2026 shall not be proceeded with, with effect from today.

¶43

12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above.

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

Page No.# 8/8

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Dr Pramod Ranjan v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Pramod Ranjan v. the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paran Pratim Gogoi Vs the Assam Public Service Commission and 6 Ors.

Harmohan Chakravarty and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Bhairab Ch Saud Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

M/S Techno Steel and Craft Industries and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Nandita Das Vs Ravi Kota, IAS and 4 Ors.

Sayesta Parbin Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.