PULAK M. PANDEY vs INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18th November, 2025 + LPA 284/2024 PULAK M. PANDEY .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sahil Khurana, Adv. versus INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arjun Mitra, Adv. Ms. Aanchal Tikmani, Adv. for R4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV ORDER (ORAL) DINESH MEHTA, J. 1. The LPA 284/2024 at hand, has been filed by the Appellant inter alia impugning the order/judgment dated 15.12.2023, whereby writ petition filed by the Appellant has been rejected by the learned Single Judge observing thus: “The writ of certiorari cannot be issued in the present matter since for the issue of such writ, there should be an error apparent on the face of it or goes to the root of the matter. However, no such circumstances are present in the instant petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the Respondent at the outset submitted that after providing full opportunity and following principles of natural justice in a domestic inquiry relating to the case of sexual harassment, a censure was Signature Not Verified Signed By:ASHOK LPA 284/2024 Page 1 of 4 KUMAR CHOUHAN Signing Date:21.11.2025 11:42:41 recorded in the service book of the Appellant, who was working as an Associate Professor against which he preferred a statutory appeal which got rejected. Thereafter, he had preferred an appeal before the disciplinary authority, subsequently, he moved an appeal before the Visitor (Hon’ble the President of India), which too faced the same fate. 3. He then preferred a writ petition before learned Single Judge of this Court, which too has been rejected by the order under challenge. He submitted that the Letters Patent Appeal being a discretionary jurisdiction, this Court should