VIPIN WATTAL Vs. INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, against whom an inquiry is being conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.C.C.') constituted by the respondent No.1, claims infringement of his fundamental rights in the said inquiry. Therefore, by instituting the instant writ petition cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner yearns for issuance of directions upon the respondent No.1 to seize the complaint (Annexures P-2 and P-8).

(2.) When the instant writ petition came up for initial hearing on 6/2/2020, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the hereinafter extracted order:-

(3.) The circumstances leading to institution of the instant writ petition are that, Ms. A (name withheld in order to conceal the identity of victim) made complaint against the petitioner, which was referred by the authority concerned to the I.C.C. Upon receipt of the complaint, the I.C.C. initially provided some part thereof to the petitioner and subsequently the complete complaint was also supplied to him. While conducting inquiry, the I.C.C. adopted the procedure of not divulging the information of witnesses, who were examined in support of the complaint made by Ms. A. The reason [as informed to this Court during the course of arguments] for adopting such a procedure by the I.C.C. stemmed from the petitioner being, at the relevant time, holding the position of Country Head in the respondent No.2- Company, and as such, he was in a position to influence the witnesses. Apart from non furnishing of information of witnesses, the petitioner's request to conduct cross-examination of witnesses was also not acceded to, rather he was advised to inform his questions to the I.C.C., whereupon, the latter would get response thereon from the witnesses.