JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Ms. Priya Hingorani with learned Advocate Mr. Himanshu Yadav and learned Advocate Mr. Arpit Kapadia on behalf of the petitioner, and learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave with learned Advocate Mr. Udit Vyas on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 2. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge an order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 herein whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated. 3. Facts in brief as much as are necessary for the purpose of deciding petition are enumerated hereinbelow: 3.1 The petitioner was appointed vide order dated 19.04.2019 as Associate Professor (Nanotechnology) in the Institute of Research and Development under the erstwhile Gujarat Forensic Science Laboratory. 3.2 It appears that on 28.09.2020 the Parliament enacted the National Forensic Science University Act whereby the Gujarat Forensic Science University (GFSU) was established as a University by the name of National Forensic Science University (hereinafter referred to as ‘NFSU). Section 56 of the National Forensic Science University Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NFSU Act) repealed Gujarat Forensic Science University Act, 2008 and whereas vide Section 5(b) of the NFSU Act, it was provided inter alia that all appointments made under the provisions of the GFSU Act, 2008, would be deemed to have been made by the NFSU Act under the corresponding provisions if the NFSU Act. 3.3 It appears that upon complaint received from the respondent no. 4 herein, the Internal Complaint Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ICC’) of the NFSU, had conducted an inquiry and had recommended that the petitioner be penalized with highest penalty by the University. It appears that as per regulation 8(5) of the University Grant Commissions (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as UGC (PoSH) Regulations, 2015] the petitioner had submitted an appeal to the Executive Authority, respondent no. 2 herein i.e. Vice Chancellor of NFSU, Gandhinagar. The respondent no. 2 vide the order impugned dated 25.08.2023 had imposed punishment of termination from service upon the present petitioner resulting in the petitioner challenging the same by way the present petition. 4. While learned Senior Advocate Ms. 2 herein i.e. Vice Chancellor of NFSU, Gandhinagar. The respondent no. 2 vide the order impugned dated 25.08.2023 had imposed punishment of termination from service upon the present petitioner resulting in the petitioner challenging the same by way the present petition. 4. While learned Senior Advocate Ms. Hingorani for the petitioner has raised various submissions against the order impugned, to this Court it appears that interference is warranted on the count of the impugned order being contrary to the procedure laid down in the UGC (PoSH) Regulations 2015 therefore, submissions insofar as relatable to the said aspect are recorded. 4.1 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that Regulation 8 of the UGC (PoSH) Regulation, 2015 states regarding process of conducting inquiry. It is submitted that upon the inquiry being complete, the inquiry report with the recommendation if any, has to be submitted to the Executive Authority of the Institution in question and whereas findings or recommendations shall also be served both upon the complainant as well as the person accused. The Executive Authority of the Institution as per Regulation 8(4) is required to act upon the recommendations within a period of 30 days unless during the said period, appeal is filed by either party. 4.2 Learned Senior Advocate would further refer to Regulation 10 of the above regulations and submit that acting upon recommendations would entail the person found guilty of sexual harassment being punished as per the service Rules of the Institution if the offender is an employee. 4.3. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that in case of respondent University, the conditions of service of employees including manner of termination of service and disciplinary action are required to be provided by statues, as per Section 40(F) of the NFSU Act. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that the first statute of the NFSU Act, 2021, inter alia envisage that no member of academic staff shall be removed unless he has been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action to be taken against the person concerned. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate that the first statute of the NFSU Act, 2021, inter alia envisage that no member of academic staff shall be removed unless he has been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action to be taken against the person concerned. 4.4 According to learned Senior Advocate , the scheme of UGC (PoSH) Regulations 2015, read with first statue of the NFSU Act, 2021 inter alia in the present context would mean that while the ICC would recommend action after conducting an inquiry to the Executive Authority and whereas the offender as well as the victim are empowered to file appeal against the findings of the ICC before the Executive Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the report and whereas the Executive Authority if comes to the conclusion that the recommendations of the ICC are to be acted upon, while the appeal preferred by the offender could be rejected yet, the offender could not be punished directly by the Executive Authority at the stage of appeal, rather the offender would be required to be punished as per the service rules of the institution, which in the present case envisage reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. Learned Senior Advocate would submit that the procedure having not been followed by the respondent institution, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. As against the said submissions, the petition is vehemently opposed by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave for the respondent who would submit that action taken against the petitioner is absolutely as per the scheme of the UGC (PoSH) Regulation, 2015. It is submitted that considering the seriousness of the allegations the appeal of the petitioner was considered and rejected and further the Executive Authority which was bound by the recommendations of the ICC had taken strict action against the petitioner. It is submitted that if the Executive Authority were to take a decision as submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner i.e. as per the Service Rules, according to learned Senior Advocate the same would render the scheme of the UGC (PoSH) Regulations, 2015 redundant since regulations envisage timely action against an offender in an allegation of the said nature. Thus submitting learned Senior Advocate would request this Court not to interfere in the impugned order. 6. Thus submitting learned Senior Advocate would request this Court not to interfere in the impugned order. 6. Heard learned Senior Advocates for the respective parties who have not made any further submissions. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, since provisions of Regulations 8 and 10 of the UGC (PoSH) Regulation, 2015 being relevant for appreciating the present purpose the same as much are requisite are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit: 8. Process of Conducting Inquiry- (1) The ICC shall, upon receipt of the complaint, send one copy of the complaint to the respondent within a period of seven days of such receipt. (2) Upon receipt of the copy of the complaint, the respondent shall file his or her reply to the complaint along with the list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses within a period of ten days. (3) The inquiry has to be completed within a period of ninety days from the receipt of the complaint. The inquiry report, with recommendations, if any, has to be submitted within ten days from the completion of the inquiry to the Executive Authority of the HEI. Copy of the findings or recommendation shall also be served on both parties to the complaint. (4) The Executive Authority of the HEI shall act on the recommendations of the committee within a period of thirty days from the receipt of the inquiry report, unless an appeal against the findings is filed within that time by either party. (5) An appeal against the findings or/ recommendations of the ICC may be filed by either party below the Executive Authority of the HEI within a period of thirty days from the date of the recommendations. (6) If the Executive Authority of the HEI decides not to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then it shall record written reasons for the same to be conveyed to ICC and both the parties to the proceedings. If on the other hand it is decided to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then a show cause notice answerable within ten days, shall be served on the party against whom action is decided to be taken. The Executive Authority of the HEI shall proceed only after considering the reply or hearing the aggrieved person. 10. If on the other hand it is decided to act as per the recommendations of the ICC, then a show cause notice answerable within ten days, shall be served on the party against whom action is decided to be taken. The Executive Authority of the HEI shall proceed only after considering the reply or hearing the aggrieved person. 10. Punishment and compensation-(1) Anyone found guilty of several harassment shall be punished in accordance with the service rules of the HEI, if the offender is an employee. 7.1 Furthermore, statute 30 of the first statute of the NFSU, 2021 also being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit: “30. Removal of employees of the University. (1) Where there is an allegation of misconduct against a teacher, a member of the academic staff or other employee of the University, the Vice– Chancellor, in the case of the teacher or member of the academic staff, and the authority competent to appoint (hereinafter referred to as the appointing authority) in the case of other employee, may, by order, in writing place such teacher, member of the academic staff or other employee as the case may be under suspension and shall forthwith report to the Board of Governors the circumstances in which the order was made; Provided that the Board of Governors may, if it is of the opinion that the circumstances of the case do not warrant the suspension of the teacher or a member of the academic staff revoke such order. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the terms of the contract of appointment or of any other terms and conditions of service of the employees, the Board of Governors, in respect of teacher and other academic staff and the appointing authority in respect of other employees shall have the power to remove a teacher or a member of the academic staff or as the case may be, other employee on grounds of misconduct. (3) Save as aforesaid, the Board of Governors, or as the case may be, the appointing authority shall not be entitled to remove any teacher, member of the academic staff or other employee except for a good cause and after three months notice or on payment of three months’ salary in lieu thereof. (3) Save as aforesaid, the Board of Governors, or as the case may be, the appointing authority shall not be entitled to remove any teacher, member of the academic staff or other employee except for a good cause and after three months notice or on payment of three months’ salary in lieu thereof. (4) No teacher, member of the academic staff or other employee shall be removed under clause (2) or clause (3) unless he has been given reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him/her. (5) The removal of a teacher, member of the academic staff or other employee shall take effect from the date on which the order of removal is made: Provided that where the teacher, member of the academic staff or other employee is under suspension at the time of his removal, such removal shall take effect from the date on which he was placed under suspension. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Statute, a teacher, member of the academic staff or other employee may resign. (a) If he is a permanent employee, only after giving three months’ notice in writing to the Board of Governors or the appointing authority, as the case may be, or by paying three months’ salary in lieu thereof; (b) If he is not a permanent employee, only after giving one month’s notice in writing to the Board of Governors or, as the case may be , the appointing authority or by paying one month’s salary in lieu thereof. Provided that such resignation shall take effect only on the date on which the resignation is accepted by the Board or the appointing authority, as the case may be.” 8. A plain reading of Regulation (8) of the UGC (PoSH) Regulations, 2015 would make it clear that upon receipt of the report of the ICC, the Executive Authority has to wait for a period of thirty days during which time, either party to the complaint is at liberty to file an appeal and whereas upon receipt of the appeal, the Executive Authority would take an appropriate decision on the recommendations. 8.1 Perusal of Regulation 8(6) also reveals that if the Executive Authority decides to act as per the recommendations, of the ICC, then a show cause notice to be answerable within ten days would be issued upon the party against whom the action is to be taken and whereas the Executive Authority shall proceed only after considering the reply or hearing the aggrieved party. 8.2 Furthermore, Regulation 10(1) also clearly lays down that the offender shall be punished in accordance with the service rules of the institution if offender is an employee. 8.3 Conjoint reading of the above provisions makes it absolutely clear that the Executive Authority while rejecting the appeal preferred by an offender, could not have issued an order of punishment simultaneously. At the first instance the Executive Authority was under an obligation to issue a show cause notice to the offender before any action is sought to be taken against him. Furthermore even if the Executive Authority is of the opinion that the reply to the show cause notice is not satisfactory, yet, in case the offender is an employee then the action could be taken against the offender only under the service rules. The regulations being more than clear, no other interpretation could be possible of the procedure to be followed in case the ICC recommends an action against an offender who is an employee of the institution. 9. Furthermore as far as the present Institution is concerned, the service rules i.e. as contained in the first statute contemplate that a teacher is required to be given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him. A further conjoint reading of the UGC (PoSH) Regulations, 2015 with Statute 30 of the first Statute would mean that after the ICC in instant case gave recommendation for imposing highest penalty upon the petitioner, yet, the Executive Authority, was under an obligation to wait till thirty days and since the appeal was filed by the petitioner as per Regulation 8(5), the Executive Authority if he was of the opinion that the recommendations was required to be accepted then he was required to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and only after affording appropriate opportunity, to the petitioner, the Executive Authority decide to accept the recommendations. 9.1. 9.1. At this stage it requires to be mentioned that while the ICC is empowered to issue recommendations against the offender, under the scheme of the Act, if the offender is an employee, the Executive Authority is empowered only to direct punishment in accordance with the regulations. While in case the offender is a student then various punishments are envisaged in the Regulations itself but as noted herienabove, the regulations are absolutely clear about the powers of Executive Authority in case the offender is an employee. 9.2 The Executive Authority after issuance of show cause notice upon petitioner being disinclined to accept the appeal of the petitioner, while rejecting the show cause notice, could only have recommended taking of action against the petitioner as per the service Rules. 9.3 The action taken by the Executive Authority, in the instant case of rejecting the appeal and punishing the present petitioner by way of the very order, does not appear to be in conformity with the regulations rather the impugned action is in clear breach of the UGC (PoSH) Regulations, 2015. Thus the impugned order is required to be interfered with. 10. At this stage this Court deems it appropriate to flag a very serious issue. As noted by this Court, while this petition had been heard substantially on 13.02.2024, and while this Court had been of the prima facie opinion that the action taken by the Vice Chancellor was in breach of UGC (PoSH) Regulations 2015, a request had been made on behalf of the respondent University requesting for time to take instructions as to whether the impugned order could be modified at the end of the respondent University themselves. On 20.02.2024, instead of coming out with any particular proposal as per their request, an affidavit- in- reply had been filed, whereby the lacuna in the procedure and in the argument, had been attempted to be covered up. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conduct of the respondents was completely reprehensible, more so when the respondent was being represented through a Senior Advocate. It requires to be mentioned that when requests are made of the above nature, this Court usually grants the same, so as to enable the authorities themselves to correct their errors. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conduct of the respondents was completely reprehensible, more so when the respondent was being represented through a Senior Advocate. It requires to be mentioned that when requests are made of the above nature, this Court usually grants the same, so as to enable the authorities themselves to correct their errors. While it was always open for the learned Counsels to have informed the Court that the respondents are not inclined to take any corrective steps themselves yet instead of taking the fair route, an affidavit-in- reply to cover up lacunas as noted hereinabove had been filed. While this Court would generally not shy away from taking appropriate action against the parties concerned, yet since it appears that any action recommended, would also include direction to take action against the learned Senior Advocate also therefore to ensure that the cordial relations between the Bar and Bench which is required for effective functioning of the Justice Delivery System, this Court refrains itself from passing any orders of such nature. Suffice it to state that playing smart with the Court may not be very wise thing to do in the long run and all concerned are required to introspect about their conduct. 11. In view of the discussions hereinabove, excluding the immediate para, and for the reasons and conclusions arrived at, the impugned order dated 25.8.2023 being unsustainable in law is hereby quashed and set aside. 12. The Executive Authority of the respondent university is at liberty to take appropriate decision upon the report of the ICC after considering the appeal preferred by the present petitioner in accordance with the UGC (PoSH) Regulations, 2015 as elaborated hereinabove. All consequential benefits of quashing and setting aside of the impugned order shall be made available to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 13. It is further clarified that none of other contentions raised by the parties have been touched upon by this Court and whereas it would be open for the parties to raise the same at an appropriate stage if the need so arises. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of as allowed. Direct service is permitted.