The provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The power of suspension under Rule 4 of the D & A Rules is not dependent on the complaint being inquired into under the said Act, and the interim measures provided under the said Act enure to the benefit of the complainant upon written request.

M.S. KARNIK, J.

Rule. Rule heard forthwith by consent of parties.

2. The challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner – State of Maharashtra is to an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai ('Tribunal' for short) in O.A. No. 919 of 2016. The Tribunal interfered with the order of suspension dated 2/9/2016 and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent within a period of four weeks and give him an appropriate posting in the post of Superintendent of Jails or equivalent post.

3. The facts in a nutshell are thus :-

The petitioner was posted as Superintendent of Jails, Central Jail, Thane. One lady employee subordinate to the petitioner, made a complaint against him levelling allegations of sexual harassment. The complaint was initially made to the petitioner No.3 who at that relevant point of time was DIG, Prisons at Pune. Thereafter, the order of suspension dated 2/9/2016 was issued against the respondent by petitioner No.2. The order of suspension was passed under provisions of Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter called as “D & A Rules”). Having regard to the nature of the complaint, the provisions of the “Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act” for short) were also invoked.

4. The record indicates that by an order dated 2nd September, 2016, the petitioner came to be suspended invoking the power conferred by Rule 4 (1)(a) of D & A Rules. The charge-sheet was issued on 15th November, 2016 and accordingly for the alleged incident of sexual harassment the petitioner was charged for committing misconduct under Rule 3 and Rule 22 (A) (1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as “the conduct rules” for short).

5. It is a matter of record that initially internal committee was to be chaired by the petitioner No.3, later on however the constitution of the committee was changed and it was ordered to be chaired by Mrs. Ashwati Dorje, Additional Commissioner of Police, Mumbai. In so far as the present petition is concerned, the issue as regards the legality of the suspension order dated 2/9/2016 arises for consideration.

6. To decide the controversy the admitted facts are these :-

(a) On the alleged complaint of sexual harassment, by an order dated 2nd September, 2016, the respondent was suspended as the inquiry against him was contemplated. By memorandum dated 15th November, 2016 an inquiry was initiated against the respondent in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 8 of D & A rules.

(b) In respect of the allegations of the sexual harassment, the respondent was charge-sheeted for violating Rule 3 and Rule 22 (A)(1) of the Conduct Rules.

(c) For conducting a departmental inquiry against the respondent, by a Government Resolution dated 23rd December, 2016 a committee was constituted under the chairmanship of Smt. Ashwati Dorje, Additional Commissioner of Police, Mumbai to hold a departmental inquiry.

(d) By a corrigendum dated 28th February, 2017 to the Government Resolution dated 23rd December, 2016, it was clarified that the Internal Complaints Committee is formed to inquire into the allegations of sexual harassment under the chairmanship of Smt. Ashwati Dorje. The Committee thus was only to inquire into the allegations of sexual harassment under the said Act and the issue of disciplinary enquiry was separated. The respondents have taken a stand that the disciplinary enquiry is kept in abeyance awaiting the report of the Internal Complaints Committee so constituted.

7. It is thus seen that by the corrigendum dated 28th February, 2017, Government Resolution dated 23rd December, 2016 came to be modified. Thus, Internal Complaints Committee was constituted to conduct detailed inquiry into the allegations of the sexual harassment against the respondent.

8. Nothing has be