SHAMSHER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with order dtd. 18/12/2017 (Annexure-11), whereby Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, remanded the inquiry back to the Complaint Committee on Sexual Harassment to further inquire into the matter in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 and memorandum dtd. 20/4/2018 (Annexure A-13) issued by the Internal Complaint Committee, headed by Deputy Inspector General of Police, TTR, HP Shimla-2, petitioner approached the erstwhile HP State Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 2464 of 2018, which now on account of its abolishment stands transferred to this Court for adjudication, praying therein for following main reliefs: 'That the impugned orders Annexures A-10, A-11 and A-13 may very kindly be quashed and set aside and further the entire proceedings with respect to the enquiry may very kindly be quashed and set-aside.'

(2.) For having bird's eye view, certain undisputed facts as emerge from the pleadings adduced on record by the respective parties are that an anonymous complaint filed by one lady constable of First Reserved Battalion Junga, District Shimla, leveling therein serious allegation of sexual harassment against the petitioner, who at that relevant time was working as Additional Superintendent of Police, First Battalion Junga, came to be addressed to Director General of Police (Annexure A-1). In the aforesaid complaint, precisely, the allegation against the petitioner was that some lady constable posted at First Battalion Junga was being harassed sexually and mentally by the petitioner. Director General of Police having taken note of contents of the complaint as detailed herein above, constituted a Fact Finding Committee to ascertain the correctness of the allegations contained in the anonymous complaint, however, the allegations were not found correct and as such, no further action, if any, was taken by the office of Director General of Police. But since complainant had also addressed the aforesaid complaint to other authorities including the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, matter subsequently came to be inquired by respondent No.3, who vide notice/communication dtd. 16/9/2016 (Annexure A-2) directed the petitioner to attend her office in connection with inquiry on 19/9/2016. Interestingly, respondent No.3, before issuing aforesaid notice dtd. 16/9/2016, to the petitioner, had already recorded the statements of the lady constables posted at First Reserved Battalion Junga (Annexure A-3) as is evident from the date mentioned by the witnesses under their signatures. Petitioner apart from presenting himself before respondent No.3 filed a detailed reply (Annexure A-4) to the complaint lodged against him, specifically refuting therein allegations contained in the anonymous complaint (A-1). Vide communication dtd. 28/9/2016 (Annexure A-5) respondent No.3 after having received reply filed by the petitioner afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to lead evidence, if any, in defence on 30/9/2016. On 30/9/2016, statement of defence witnesses, ten in number, was recorded jointly by respondent No.3 (Annexure A-7). Respondent No.3 after having recorded statement of defence witnesses and without affording an opportunity of cross-examination to the petitioner proceeded to submit final report of inquiry against the petitioner recommending therein action under the conduct rules and ethics of the police department.

(3.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with aforesaid inquiry report submitted by the Sexual Harassment Committee, petitioner filed a detailed representation to the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure A-9). In the aforesaid representation, petitioner besides highlighting the number of procedural irregularities committed by the Sexual Harassment Committee, raised specific issue with regard to non-compliance of provisions contained under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 as also the provisions contained under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short the'Sexual Harassment Act'). Petitioner claimed that though at the first instance, no inquiry could have been initiated on the basis of anonymous complaint and thereafter further inquiry, if any, was to be conducted strictly in terms of provisions contained under Sec. 9 of the Sexual Harassment Act and Sec. 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Having taken note of the grounds raised in the representation as detailed herein above, respondent No.1 i.e. Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, vide order dtd. 21/5/2017 (Annexure A-10), remanded the case back to the Inquiry Committee with direction to further inquire into the matter in accordance with the Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. However, interestingly, the Sexual Harassment Committee headed by respondent No.3 again failed to follow the procedure as prescribed under Rule 14 CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 Rules and Ss. 9, 10 and 11 of the Sexual Harassment Act and again submitted the same report as was submitted at the first instance. Petitioner being aggrieved with the aforesaid inquiry again filed representation to the Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, who after being convinced that alleged allegation against the petitioner as contained in the anonymous complaint (Annexure A-1) could only be decided in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, again remanded the inquiry back to the Complaint Committee in terms of Rule 15(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 with direction to do the needful in terms of provisions contained in Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. After passing of the aforesaid remand order dtd. 18/12/2017 (Annexure -12), respondent No.3 again issued notice dtd. 10/4/2018, to the petitioner, asking him to attend her office on 20/4/2018 for cross-examination of defence witnesses on the allegations leveled against him. Vide memorandum dtd. 20/4/2018 (Annexure A-13), following allegations came to be leveled against the petitioner by respondent No.3, in terms of anonymous complaint by one lady constable posted at 1st Battalion Junga: