S.K. DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case was filed originally before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and it was registered as Writ Petition ( C) No.8466/2006. The challenge in the Writ Petition was against the report of the Enquiry Committee dated 02.04.2007 and the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 04.07.2008 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the Petitioner with immediate effect as modified by the Appellate Authority's order dated 25.08.2008 reducing the penalty of 'reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay'. Later on, the Petitioner being the employee of Respondent No.2, i.e., the Institute of Pesticide Formulation Technology ('IPFT' for short), an organization notified under Section 14(2) of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and Others : 1997 (3) SCC 261 wherein it has been held that this Tribunal is the court of first instance, the High Court, vide its order dated 23.10.2013, transferred this case to this Tribunal for adjudication. Accordingly, it has been registered as TA No.120/2013.

(2.) THE brief matrix of the case is that the Applicant while working as Chief Analytical in IPFT under the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, a sexual harassment complaint was made against him on 06.02.2003 by Dr. (Mrs.) D. Sanyal, Specialist, Analytical Division. The Respondents constituted a Complaint Committee on 21.11.2003 consisting of Ms. Veenu Gupta, Chairperson, Shri Anurag Saxena, Member and Ms. Anuvinda Varkery, Member (Representative from NGO) and Ms. Kailash Prasad, Member. The Committee met on 13.02.2003, 20.03.2003, 09.05.2003, 03.06.2003 and 09.09.2003 and conducted the hearings. As Ms. Kailash Prasad was on leave, she was not present in those meetings. As directed by the Committee, the Applicant submitted his representation dated 16.03.2003 to it denying the allegations made by Dr. Sanyal. He submitted that all the allegations against him were false and fabricated and have been leveled against him for retaliatory action for covering up administrative and financial lapses on the part of Dr. Sanyal in performing her duties. A copy of the reply was given to Dr. Sanyal by the Committee. She has given a list of the persons whom she wanted to be present before the Committee as witnesses. They, were Dr. D. Sengupta, Director, IPFT, Shri Tirathraj Yadav, Lab. Attendant, Analytical Division and Shri A.K. Roy, retired employee of HIL. The Committee called them before it on 09.05.2002. Shri Roy in his written statement has submitted that all the three complaints made by Dr. Sanyal were after his retirement and he was not an eye witness to any of the incidents but he was not present before the Committee. Shri Roy. Shri Tirat Raj Yadav appeared before the Committee and made his statement and it was recorded. Dr. D. Sengupta was also heard by the Committee and he was asked to submit his written statement. The Committee has finally, vide its report dated 21.11.2003, held that the remarks made by the Applicant fall under the category 'sexually coloured remarks' and held that a prima facie case was made out which needs to be enquired into greater details as per departmental rules. But the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Director of IPFT, vide its order dated 03/08/2004, held that he was convinced that no further investigation was necessary in the matter and imposed the penalty of dismissal from service upon the Applicant with immediate effect. However, the Appellate Authority, which is the Governing Body of IPFT, in its 16th meeting held on 11.01.2005, set aside the aforesaid dismissal order as the due process and the procedure prescribed under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 have not been followed. Accordingly, Appellate Authority ordered to start the disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant afresh by observing the prescribed rules. The Applicant (Petitioner) filed Writ Petition No.6536/2005 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi challenging the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority but the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2005. Thereafter, the Complaint Committee issued a fresh notice to the Applicant to be present before it on 09.11.2005 at 3.00 p.m. He again filed Writ Petition No.14706/2006 before the High Court of Delhi challenging the fresh enquiry being held against him and the High Court, vide its order dated 19.10.2006 in CM No.11576/2006 in the said Writ Petition allowed the enquiry to be continued but any action to be taken pursuant to the enquiry was made subject to the court till the next date of hearing. The Committee submitted its report on 02.04.2007 and the conclusion arrived at by it in its report was as under: -

(3.) THE main ground on which the Applicant has challenged the aforesaid orders in the disciplinary proceedings is that in spite of the advice of the first and second Complaint's Committees, the Respondents did not follow the prescribed procedure as laid down in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 before imposing the penalty upon the Petitioner. In this regard the learned counsel for the Petitioner Shri Kumar Parimal relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others : 1997 (6) SCC 241. According to the said judgment, the employers have to ensure prevention of sexual harassment of women. It, inter alia, provided that an appropriate mechanism should be created by the employer organizations for redressal of the complaints made by a victim of sexual harassment and that the complaint mechanism should be adequate to provide a Complaints Committee apart from a special Counsellor or other support services. The Complaints Committee was also required to be headed by a woman not less than half of its members should be women. The Complaints Committee is required to make an annual report to the Government department concerned of the complaints and actions taken by them. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Apex Court, the Government of India amended the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and included Rule 3 ( c) which forbids the Government servants from indulging in sexual harassment. The said rule reads as under: -