RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. UOI AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this writ petition is to the show cause notice dated June 13, 2007, report of the Complaint Committee dated February 09, 2007 and to the orders dated February 08, 2010 and August 12, 2010. Vide office order dated February 08, 2010, the Managing Director of the respondent No.2 organisation on a conclusion that the charge of sexual harassment having been proved by the Statutory Complaint Committee appointed by the respondent No.1, and the reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner being not satisfactory, imposed a major penalty, thereby dismissing the petitioner notionally; whereas the order dated August 12, 2010 is an order communicating the decision of the Board of Directors in an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated February 08, 2010, whereby the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) Some of the relevant facts are that on October 07, 2002 a female employee of the department lodged a complaint regarding sexual harassment against the petitioner. A FIR No. 450/2003 was registered against the petitioner in P.S Sarita Vihar, under Section 509/504 IPC on September 16, 2003. That apart, complaints by two more female employees and the same lady officer were also filed on August 28, 2003 against the petitioner for sexual harassment. In the month of November, 2003, a Complaint Committee comprising two lady officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and Under Secretary of the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries of the respondent No.1 recommended disciplinary action against the petitioner. On November 20, 2003 a charge -sheet for major penalty under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Pension Rules, 1965 was issued to the petitioner. A practising lady Advocate was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to conduct proceedings against the petitioner. The police authorities filed a charge -sheet against the petitioner on December 14, 2003 in FIR No.450/2003 under Section 504/509 IPC. On August 25, 2004 upon completion of the regular enquiry proceedings the Enquiry Officer submitted her report absolving the petitioner of the charges. On a show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted his representation dated August 30, 2004. Finally an order dated November 08, 2004 was issued exonerating the petitioner of the charges of sexual harassment. In the meantime, on February 03, 2005 the Board of respondent federation was dissolved and an Administrator was appointed. On April 12, 2005 the Administrator ratified the order of exoneration of the petitioner. Accordingly, on June 17, 2005 the respondent No.1 i.e. the Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries informed the three complainants about the exoneration of the petitioner. It is pleaded by the petitioner that on January 12, 2006 he made a representation reiterating his grievance of planned harassment against him. It is his case that a new Board of Directors close to Mr. B.K. Mishra - respondent No.3 was selected. On June 05, 2006 the newly elected Board passed an order restoring the position of Mr.B.K. Mishra -respondent No.3 by recalling the order of reversion. The respondent No.3 was appointed as Managing Director on August 29, 2006. Immediately thereafter on November 27, 2006 the petitioner received a notice dated November 21, 2006 whereby he was directed to appear before the Complaint Committee on November 27, 2006. In his reply dated December 04, 2006 the petitioner questioned the status of the Complaint Committee. The newly constituted Complaint Committee submitted its report against the petitioner afresh on February 09, 2007. On June 13, 2007 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to file his representation against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) 6617/2007 challenging the legality of notice dated June 13, 2007. This Court in its hearing dated September 10, 2007 stayed the operation of the notice to show cause dated June 13, 2007. In the meanwhile, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide his order dated November 13, 2007 discharged the petitioner. This Court modified its order dated September 10, 2007 passed in W.P.(C) 6617/2007. A personal hearing was given to the petitioner by the respondent No.3 on June 17, 2009, who submitted his report to the Board. The respondent No.2 Board decided to dismiss the petitioner from services. On February 08, 2010 the respondent No.3 communicated the impugned decision of the respondent No.2 Board giving its approval to the order of dismissal. On February 11, 2010 the petitioner vide his representation sought to know, who would hear the appeal against the dismissal order dated February 08, 2010. The petitioner was informed to prefer appeal before the Board of Directors - respondent No.2. The petitioner submitted his appeal to the respondent No.2 on March 17, 2010 against the order of dismissal dated February 08, 2010. The petitioner sent a reminder to the respondent No.3 to inform the status of the appeal dated March 17, 2010. The respondent No.3 communicated the impugned order of the Appellate Authority dated August 12, 2010.

(3.) It is the case of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in their counter -affidavit that on December 30, 2004 the Central Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Government of India issued a show cause notice under Section 123 of the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 ('Act' in short), vide which the Board i.e. the respondent No.2 was called upon to show cause as to why the Board of Directors of the federation be not removed. One of the grounds for show cause notice was mismanagement, high handedness and moral turpitude related to Rajendra Singh i.e. the petitioner, who at that time was working as Assistant Director, In -Charge of Administration. Accordingly, the Board of Directors of the Federation was removed and Joint Commissioner (Fisheries) in the Department was appointed as the Administrator. The subject matter of the allegation against the petitioner in the show cause notice dated December 30, 2004 was that a complaint was received through National Commission for Women regarding sexual harassment of Ms. Rosy Duggal, Junior Technical Assistant, Ms. Jhuma Chakraborty, Sr. Technical Assistant and Ms. Uma Rani Pandey, Junior Assistant. The complaints were referred to the Complaint Committee during 2004. The case of the Complaint Committee was examined in its preliminary report. A detailed report on the matter was called from the then Managing Director of the respondent No.2 organisation before deciding further course of action. The Managing Director in his letter dated October 17, 2003 stated that a complaint has been received on October 07, 2002 which was enquired into by the Managing Director and explanation of the petitioner was called for. However, the Managing Director did not find any material in the complaint. The Managing Director had stated that the matter was discussed with Ms. Rosy Duggal on several occasions. During the meetings with the family members of Rosy Duggal, the then Managing Director asked the petitioner to mend his ways and the petitioner felt sorry for that. After this no unbecoming event has taken place, but the Managing Director could not explain why he asked the petitioner to mend his ways when he had not found substance in the complaint against him. In her complaint Ms. Rosy Duggal stated that she was in service for the last 18 years. The petitioner, Assistant Director took charge of the Administration Division in the year 1996 and since then he has been in the habit of teasing the lady workers. Since the computer is in his room, he calls them in his room while the computer has obscene pictures on it, with a loud music. While talking to them he was in the habit of touching their hands and shoulder. If complaint is made, he used to say that he being the In -Charge of the Administration, no harm can be done to him. Also once he rang up her husband to inform him that she does not have a good character. When any lady is sitting alone, while passing through that place he passes remarks. He is in the habit of ringing up in her house at odd times, which she came to know due to the I.D. Caller installed at her home. In the preliminary enquiry conducted by Ms. Radha Mani, Under Secretary, Administration, the complainants were heard. The petitioner was also examined. In his examination he was unable to refute the allegations and the charge of sexual harassment. The statement of then Managing Director was also recorded. In the meantime, the department initiated a departmental enquiry where no representative of the Government of India was taken as per Vishaka's guidelines. The three lady employees in their complaints informed that the Enquiry Officer appointed by the then Managing Director is his friend and relative and hence need to be changed. The Managing Director being the head of the institution did not bother to look into the representation of the complainants. In the preliminary report, the Under Secretary Ms. Radha Mani while making a report made the following observations during the enquiry: -