SAMRIDHI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, calls into question the order dated 28-2-2001 passed by the third respondent, as not proportionate to the gravity of the established misconduct of the fourth respondent. The fo urth respondent had been charged with sexual harassment of the petitioner, and found guilty. The penalty of dismissal imposed on him was modified by the impugned order into compulsory retirement. Pleadings of parties

(2.) The respondent No.4, while working as Dairy Supervisor in Delhi Milk Scheme, was issued a charge sheet on 20.01.2000 alleging attempted sexual assault and outraging the modesty of the petitioner, who was working as Diary Mate on 31.12.1999 when she wa s alone in the Office of Central Dairy. The petitioner had been recently widowed, and had been appointed to work as a "mate" by the Delhi Milk Scheme. The charges were denied, by way of a letter dated 31.01.2000 stating that allegations were complete y biased and fabricated, in order to take revenge with vested interests on the part of witnesses. In this letter the said respondent also stated that the truth could be unveiled only in an enquiry under the rules.

(3.) A departmental enquiry was conducted; the fourth respondent participated in the proceedings. The enquiry officer in his report, based on the deposition of the witnesses and other circumstantial evidence, concluded that the possibility of the charge cou Id not be ruled out. It was held that in such cases, there was seldom any direct evidence, and circumstantial evidence had to be usually assessed, and evaluated. The fourth respondent was held guilty of the charges. He was furnished the copy of the enqui y report and was given an opportunity to make a representation, which he did.