Delhi HC disposes pleas against stay on suspension of Ramanujan College Principal; directs disposal within 3 months

New Delhi [India], October 15 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday disposed of three pleas challenging the interim stay granted on the suspension of Ramanujan College Principal Professor Rasal Singh.
The division bench has directed the single judge to dispose of the matter within three months. Meanwhile, Professor Singh will continue to remain on leave.
The case pertains to the suspension of Professor Singh on September 18, following alleged sexual harassment allegations made by three women faculty members of Ramanujan College.
Division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Vimal Kumar Yadav disposed of the appeal against the stay on suspension of Professor Rasal Singh, Principal of Ramanujan College. The appeals have been disposed of with direction. The detailed order is to be uploaded by the court.

The High Court on Tuesday reserved the order after hearing arguements by the counsel for Delhi University, Ramanujan College and one of the complainant teachers.
Senior advocate Bansuri Swaraj appeared on behalf of the College. Senior advocate Geeta Luthra, alongwith advocate Prashanshika, appeared for Professor Rasal Singh.
On October 9, the Division bench had asked Rasal Singh to go on leave till October 14.
During the earlier hearing, it was submitted that the suspension is not a punitive action. The committee has the authority to take action in accordance with the University's ordinances.
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.
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 single judge bench had noted that the petitioner was not allowed to be heard before his suspension. The appellants had sought a direction to set aside the stay order passed by the single bench. It was also prayed that the operation of the September 26 order may be stayed till the petition against the order is pending.
The stay order was challenged on the ground that it is patently not sustainable in the eyes of law and service jurisprudence, and the same is therefore liable to be set aside. It was 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 a serious allegation of sexual harassment at the workplace, before initiating the inquiry proceedings as per the Prevention of Sexual Harrasment at Workplace (POSH) Act, 2013 and UGC Regulations, 2015.
The Disciplinary Authority, in the interest and safety of the Women Faculty members, was fully competent to suspend Rasal Singh with immediate effect as per Clause (9) of Ordinance XVIII (7) of the Delhi University Act, 1922, its Statutes and Ordinances.
It was also stated that the Single Judge passed the order of 26.09.2025 in undue haste and against the well-laid-down principle of law that the order of suspension pending inquiry is non-punitive in nature. The Authority entitled to appoint would also be entitled to suspend a person pending an inquiry into his conduct.
On September 26, Justice Sachin Datta granted an interim stay on the 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 committee constituted by the 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.," Justice Sachin Datta ordered.
However, the High Court has made it clear that it is for the concerned ICC to consider whether any interim measures against the petitioner are warranted, including suspension and/or the imposition of any other restrictions.
The High Court had requested the concerned ICC to bestow its urgent consideration to the matter and take an expeditious decision with regard thereto. Let the inquiry against the petitioner also be expedited.
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 allegations is the ICC. This has also been noted by the said Committee.
"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 noted 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 the 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, the ICC shall pass an appropriate protective order in favour of the respondent (complainant). The High Court had sought a reply from the respondents and listed the matter for hearing on October 15.
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)