The main legal point established in the judgment is the illegality of the suspension order and the lack of statutory force in the committee for summary trial due to non-compliance with the relevant legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

Rabindranath Samanta, J.

This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Niroula challenging the order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench(hereinafter be referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 352/09/SKM/2021.

2. In the tribunal application the petitioner sought for the following reliefs :

a) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities concerned to immediately allow the applicant to join his duties as TGT at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ravangla, South Sikkim;

b) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities concerned to forthwith set aside/cancel/withdraw/rescind the decision of the respondent no. 2 to conduct summary trial into the allegation against the applicant vide reference no. PER-14032/2/2020-Estt- III/13728-733 dated 16.06.2020;

c) An order be passed directing the respondent authorities concerned to forthwith set aside/cancel/withdraw/rescind the order of suspension being Ref. No. PER.DP/NVS (SHR)/PK Niroula/6170 dated 16.02.2020 and the subsequent orders of extension.

3. The Learned Tribunal by the order impugned permitted the respondent authorities to proceed with the order for summary trial and directed the petitioner to co-operate with the authorities.

4. The seminal question involved in this writ petition is as to whether the order of suspension inflicted upon the petitioner is sustainable in law and the committee constituted for summary trial pertaining to the allegations of sexual harassment against the petitioner has statutory force after enactment of The Sexual harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and amendment of relevant provisions of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 in the light of the Act.

5. The background facts as projected by the petitioner and which are necessary for adjudication may be adumbrated as under:

The petitioner is a teacher and he was appointed by the respondent Navodaya vidyalaya Samiti on 17.11.1997 as TGT(Trained Graduate Teacher)-Nepali. He was initially posted at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, North Sikkim. Later he was transferred to Bihar in the year 2006 and in the year 2007 he was again transferred to North Sikkim. Lastly, he was transferred to his present place of posting in the year 2011.

On 15.02.2020 the respondent no.4, the principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Ravangla, South Sikkim made a written complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of Ravangla Police Station to the effect that he received complaints from several students of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya against the petitioner alleging commission of sexual harassment (molestation) on 14.02.2020 and immediately thereafter, he set up an internal committee to enquire into the complaints. It was also stated in the complaint that around 67 students complained in writing with the said committee that they were personally harassed by the petitioner. On such allegations the principal requested the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to take appropriate legal action against the petitioner.

On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Ravangla Police Station Case No. 02 of 2020 dated 15.02.2020 under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 was registered against the petitioner for investigation. The petitioner was arrested by the Investigating Officer on 15.02.2020, but subsequently he was released on bail by the concerned Court.

The petitioner was not informed about any disciplinary action taken against him, but from unofficial sources he came to know that he was placed under suspension. However, in reply to an Email dated 11.06.2020 seeking information regarding his status as he intended to join his duties, the respondent no. 4 by communicating an order being No. PER.DP/NVS(SHR)/PK Niroula/6170 dated 16.02.2020 informed him that he was placed under suspension with effect from 15.02.2020 in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central