AVINASH MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 15.01.2014 dismissing O.A. No.3658/2013. In that application, the petitioner had challenged the proceedings which led to an inquiry into complaint of misconduct amounting to sexual harassment at the work place.

(2.) The brief facts are that the Petitioner was working as Joint Advisor (Water Resources) in the Planning Commission and was in direct line for consideration to the promotional post of Advisor (Water Resources), which was due to fall vacant on 11.08.2013. He was considered and selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) which met on 11.04.2013. Its recommendations had to be approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC) prior to appointment. At that stage, a lady official, who had worked as Senior Research Officer when the petitioner was posted as Deputy Director (Water Resources), was promoted on ad hoc basis as Deputy Advisor (Water Resources) on 11.02.2013. She gave a written complaint on 27.02.2013 against the petitioner, alleging harassment at the workplace. The petitioner contends that this allegation was made even before the order asking her to report to him was issued on 01.03.2013. The first complaint according to the petitioner was general and vague one but the second complaint dated 14.03.2013 sought to improve her initial complaint, citing instances of alleged harassment.

(3.) The complaints were referred to the Complaints Committee on Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (hereafter referred to as "the Complaints Committee") set up in terms of the directions contained in the judgments of the Supreme Court reported as Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 6 SCC 241 and the further directions made in Medha Kotwal Lele v. UOI and Ors. [W.P.(C) 173-177/1999, decided on 26.04.2004]. The matter was referred to the Complaints Committee on 03.04.2013. The Committee sent a notice to the petitioner on 22.04.2013, referring to the two complaints of the lady official, and asked the petitioner to appear before it on 01.05.2013. He complied with the notice and duly attended the Committee and denied the allegations. He represented to the respondents to grant him Vigilance Clearance for promotion to the post of Advisor (Water Resources). The petitioner alleged that since there was lack of clarity, he approached the CAT by filing O.A. No.1911/2013. During the pendency of proceedings, he represented to the Complaints Committee on 20.05.2013.