Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
A.K. Sikri and Vipin Sanghi, JJ.
Saurabh Kumar Mallick - Appellants
Vs.
The Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 8649/2007
Decided On: 09.05.2008
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R.K. Handoo and Manish Shukla, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant:Rajiv Shakdhar, Sr. Adv. and Sunil Kr. Rai, Adv. for Respondent No. 1
The main legal point established is the interpretation of the term 'workplace' in the context of sexual harassment, and the requirement to follow the procedure contained in Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules for conducting inquiries.
Headnote:
Sexual Harassment - Workplace - Section 451/354 IPC - Rule 3(c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules - Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Indian Audit and Accounts Service, faced charges of sexual harassment at the workplace. The disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner based on a complaint by a senior officer. The petitioner challenged the suspension order and the complaint being deemed as a chargesheet. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's challenge, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the definition of workplace and concluded that the place where the alleged incident took place, the Glen Mess, should be treated as a workplace. The court also addressed the petitioner's contentions regarding the alleged act constituting misconduct, the procedure of inquiry, the effect of criminal proceedings, and the court's observations prejudicing the petitioner's defense.
Issues: Interpretation of workplace in the context of sexual harassment, compliance with relevant service rules, stay of departmental proceedings during criminal case, and potential prejudice from court's observations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Glen Mess should be treated as a workplace, and the procedure contained in Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules should be followed. The court also refused to grant a stay of departmental proceedings during the criminal case and clarified that its observations did not prejudge the petitioner's guilt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the inquiry was ongoing and the petitioner could challenge adverse inquiry reports or orders in the future.
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The petitioner herein, who is an employee of Indian Audit and Accounts Service (IA&AS) and is holding the position of Director, is facing the charge of sexual harassment at workplace. Disciplinary proceedings on this charge are instituted against the petitioner on the basis of complaint dated 12.4.2007 by one of his senior officers, namely, Ms. Geetali Tare. A committee constituted by the disciplinary authority with one Ms. Pravin Tripathy (IA&AS) had been constituted to look into the allegations and the inquiry by the said committee is underway. We may mention at this stage that an FIR No. 75/2007 dated 31.3.2007 is also registered against the petitioner under Section 451/354 of the IPC. The petitioner was also placed under suspension with immediate effect vide orders dated 3.5.2007. The petitioner is not satisfied with the manner in which the Inquiry Committee is holding the inquiry and thereforee, he filed OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the Tribunal) on 26.7.2007 seeking quashing of the suspension order dated 3.5.2007 as well as order dated 14.7.2007 vide which the complaint made by the complainant is deemed to be the chargesheet as per the letter of the Chairperson of the Inquiry Committee. It was also his submission that no such charge could at all be leveled. The said OA has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 9.10.2007 and assailing that order, present petition is filed. We may mention at this stage itself that in the meantime the respondents have issued another chargesheet on 30.10.2007 under the CCS (CCA) Rules.
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge, we may take stock of the material events. At the relevant time when the alleged episode occurred, the petitioner was positioned as Director (Administration) at the National Academy of Audit and Account (in short NAAA), Shimla. Ms. Geetali Tare was also working in the same Academy as Director (Training). Thus, both were holding equivalent post, namely, that of Director, though Ms. Geetali Tare (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was senior to the petitioner. On 31.3.2007, the complainant lodged FIR against the petitioner herein under Section 451/354 IPC. Simultaneously, a complaint was also made to the Director General of the NAAA. A supplementary complaint dated 12.4.2007 was also made to the office of the Comptroller General of India wherein the complainant stated certain additional facts which she could not mention in her original complaint.
3. Section 451 relates to house-trespass in order to commit any offence punishable with imprisonment and Section 354 deals with assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
4. Within four days of the lodging of this FIR, the petitioner was transferred from Shimla to Kerala. In the first undated complaint, the complainant alleged that on 30.3.2007, there was an official dinner at Radisson Hotel. After the dinner, she returned to the Academy along with certain officials/colleagues, including the petitioner at around 11:30 pm by staff car. Other officers were dropped at their residence and thereafter, the complainant and the petitioner proceeded to Glen Mess where the petitioner was occupying Room Nos. 11 and 12 with his family on the ground floor and the complaint was residing in Room No. 21 on the first floor. When she proceeded towards her room the petitioner followed and entered her room forcibly. The incident which took place is narrated in the complaint in the following words:
Inside the room, he said to me "I want you". He repeated this statement four times. I replied "Saurabh, you have insulted me in the worst way that a man can insult a woman. Please leave the room at once. He replied to this by saying "Have I said anything wrong? Is it so unnatural?" I said "mujhe kucch pata nahin, aap please mere room se baahar niklo." (I dont know anything, you please leave my room). I have repeated this s
