Writ Court Cannot Award Compensation Based On ICC Findings While Statutory Appeal Is Pending: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Order Against Former LNIPE VC

"The right of appeal is a substantive right which is required to be given to the authority concerned, so that on facts clarity may come to the fore," Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated June 29, 2026, held that a Writ Court should not award compensation based on Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) findings if a statutory appeal against those findings is still pending.

A division bench comprising Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Ashish Shroti observed that allowing a Writ Court's order of compensation to stand during the pendency of a departmental appeal would proceed on an assumption of guilt, thereby causing prejudice to the appellant.

The court was hearing a writ appeal filed by Dr. Dilip Kumar Dureha, the former Vice Chancellor of Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education (LNIPE), challenging a 2025 order of a Single Judge. The Writ Court had previously awarded Rs. 35 lakhs in compensation to a Yoga Instructor who had filed a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The dispute originated from a complaint lodged in October 2019 by a Yoga Instructor at LNIPE against the then Vice Chancellor regarding an incident in March 2019. Following the complaint, the ICC initiated inquiry proceedings and submitted a report in September 2020 which contained findings of misconduct but did not suggest specific penal action. The appellant subsequently preferred an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act and Clause 8(5) of the UGC Regulations, 2015, which remained pending before the Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs.

The primary question before the Court was whether the Writ Court was justified in awarding heavy compensation while the statutory appeal against the ICC's inquiry report was still pending. The Court also considered whether the departmental appellate authority should be mandated to examine the factual matrix threadbare before any judicial determination of liability or compensation is made.

The Right Of Appeal Is A Substantive Right

The Division Bench emphasized that the right to challenge an inquiry report through a departmental appeal is not a mere formality but a substantive legal right. The Court noted that the first departmental authority must apply its mind to the contentions raised by both the appellant and the complainant to ensure a logical decision is reached.

The bench observed that "it is apposite that first departmental authority should apply its mind in appeal where contentions raised by the appellant as well as reply, if any preferred by the respondents be met and reasonable/logical decision be taken." This process ensures that the factual matrix is examined "threadbare" by the specialized authority.

Judicial Intervention During Pendency Of Statutory Remedy

The Court expressed concern that judicial findings at the writ stage, while an appeal is pending, can cause irreparable prejudice. It was the submission of the appellant, which the Court found merit in, that if the Writ Court's order is allowed to stand, it proceeds with an assumption about the guilt of the appellant even before the statutory appellate process is exhausted.

The bench noted that during the pendency of an appeal, "any observation either by learned Writ Court or by this Court causes prejudice and adversity to the cause of justice specially to appellant because if order of learned Writ Court is allowed to stand then it proceeds with assumption about the guilt of appellant."

"This way factual matrix of the case and the issues raised by the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 during the course of arguments would be examined threadbare, as the right of appeal is a substantive right which is required to be given to the authority concerned."

Remand To The Ministry Of Sports And Youth Affairs

The Court identified the Secretary, Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs, Government of India, as the competent appellate authority in this matter. Given the "tenure and texture of the dispute," the Division Bench deemed it appropriate to remand the case so that the statutory authority could provide a "reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned."

The Court specifically directed that the appellate authority must ensure the passing of a final order in accordance with the law on an "expeditious note." The bench set a timeline, suggesting that the matter should preferably be decided within a period of two months from the date of the parties' first appearance.

Setting Aside Compensation Against State And Institute

By setting aside the impugned order dated July 15, 2025, the High Court also effectively stayed the directions regarding the Rs. 5 lakh penalty imposed on State functionaries for delayed investigation and the Rs. 1 lakh cost imposed on LNIPE for its "casual attitude." The entire matter has now been relegated back to the departmental stage for a fresh look at the merits.

The Division Bench concluded that the interest of justice would be best served by allowing the statutory appellate mechanism to complete its course. The Court set aside the Single Judge's order and directed all parties to appear before the Appellate Authority (Secretary, Ministry of Sports and Youth Affairs) on July 14, 2026, to pursue the pending appeal.

Date of Decision: 29 June 2026