TEJINDER KAUR Vs. UOI & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia impugns an order dated 25.07.2018, passed by the Tribunal partly allowing O.A. No.1110/2018 filed by the petitioner, by directing that she be paid salary only w.e.f. 01.05.2017 to.12.2017 and that her absence from 12.12.2017, be treated as unauthorized absence, which the respondents would be at liberty to deal with in accordance with law. The petitioner has also sought quashing of order dated 25.05.2017, passed by the respondent no.2 directing its Regional Centre, Indore not to release any salary to her in view of her unauthorized absence from 10.09.2016.

(2.) The facts as noted by the Tribunal are that the petitioner has been working in the respondent no.2/ National Institute of Public Cooperation and Child Development since 27.09.1987. On her selection on a contract basis, the petitioner joined the post of Joint Director on 10.06.2013. It may be noted that the respondent no.2/Institute has its headquarters at New Delhi and has four regional centres at Bengaluru, Indore, Lucknow, and Gauhati, each of which is headed by a Regional Director in the grade of Joint Director.

(3.) While the petitioner was posted at Delhi, respondent no.1/Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, who is also the Chairperson of the respondent No.2, received a complaint of sexual harassment from an employee. Instead of referring the said complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee (in short ICC) of the respondent no.2 constituted under the 'Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act'), of which the petitioner was the Presiding Officer, the same was considered by the Secretary himself. Feeling aggrieved on being bypassed like this, the petitioner approached this Court by way of a writ petition [W.P.(C) No.5928/2016]. This Court while issuing notice in the aforesaid petition vide its order dated 18.07.2016, restrained the respondents from reconstituting the ICC, in contravention of Section 4(5) of the Act.