The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings for sexual harassment must adhere to the prescribed procedure under the CCS (CCA) Rules, and initiating a fresh inquiry after the respondent's retirement may be impractical and subject to the statutory period of limitation under Rule 9(2)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

1. Rule DB.

2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, present writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

3. Challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 15.7.2014 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) by which TA No.120/2013 filed by the respondent herein stands allowed and the report of the first Complaint Committee dated 21.11.2003, the first order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 3.8.2004, the first order of the Appellate Authority dated 11.1.2005, the report of the second Complaint Committee dated 2.4.2007, second order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 7.4.2008 and the second order of the Appellate Authority dated 12.8.2008 have been quashed.

4. At the outset, it may be noticed that initially the respondent had filed W.P.(C) No. 8466/2008 before the this Court, however, the said matter was transferred to the Tribunal, which was then registered as T.A.No.120/2013 before the Tribunal.

5. The brief facts of the case are that initially the respondent served in the Defence Research and Development Organization as a “Senior Scientist” for 23 years. On 6.7.1999, the respondent joined institute of Institute of Pesticide Formulation Technology/ respondent no. 2 (in short “IPFT”) under the Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, as “Chief (Analytical)”. While working as Chief Analytical Officer, a sexual harassment complaint was made by one, Dr. X, who was posted in the Analytical Division, on 6.2.2003 against him. The petitioners then constituted a Complaint Committee on 21.11.2003 consisting of Ms. Veenu Gupta, Chairperson; Sh. Anurag Saxena, Member; Ms. Anuvinda Varkery, Member (representative from NGO); and Ms. Kailash Prasad, Member. The Committee conducted hearings on various dates. As directed by the Committee, the respondent submitted his representation dated 16.3.2003 denying all the allegations made by the complainant. In the said representation, the respondent had also submitted that the allegations made by the complainant against him were false, fabricated and leveled as a retaliatory action so as to cover up administrative and financial lapses on the part of the complainant while performing her duties. The complainant had given a list of witnesses, whom she wanted to be present before the Complaint Committee. The Complaint Committee called the said witnesses before them on 9.5.2002.

6. One of the witnesses, namely Sh. A.K. Roy in his written statement had submitted that all the three complaints made by the complainant were after his retirement and, thus, he was not an eye-witness to any of the incidents and accordingly he did appear before the Committee. The Complaint Committee submitted its report on 21.11.2003 holding that the remarks made by the respondent fall under the category of “sexually coloured remarks”. The Committee also held that a prima facie case was made out against the petitioner which was required to be examined in greater details as per the Departmental Rules. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioners, i.e. Director of IPFT, vide his order dated 23.8.2004, held that he was convinced that no further investigation was necessary in the matter and imposed a penalty of dismissal from service with immediate effect. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, which is the governing body of IPFT, in its 16th meeting held on 11.1.2005, set aside the aforesaid order of dismissal as the due process and procedure prescribed under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, had not been followed. The Appellate Authority had also directed that the disciplinary proceedings be started afresh by following the prescribed Rules. The relevant portion of the minutes of the meeting read as under:

“Item No. 7 Appeal by Dr. S.K. Das, Former Chie