The court emphasized the necessity for timely resolution of tribunal applications to facilitate uninterrupted disciplinary proceedings and uphold the integrity of the process.

Headnote:(A) Central Administrative Tribunal - O.A. No.2130/2018 - Writ petition against interlocutory orders impeding disciplinary proceedings against respondent - Inquiry report submitted by Internal Complaint Committee regarding allegations of sexual harassment - Request for expedited resolution of the pending application by the Tribunal. (Paras 1.1, 2.1, 3)

(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Court's role in monitoring Tribunal proceedings urging prompt resolution to maintain judicial efficiency and integrity. (Paras 3)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition challenges the Central Administrative Tribunal's orders that hinder disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, arising from allegations of sexual harassment against a female employee.

Findings of Court:
The court requested the Tribunal to expedite the pending application related to the case.

Issues: The key issue addressed was the impediment caused by the Tribunal's orders to the continuation of disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored the importance of timely resolution of tribunal applications to avoid unnecessary delays in disciplinary processes and ensure justice for complainants.

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions to the Tribunal.

Table of Content
1. allegation of sexual harassment and inquiry report. (Para 1)
2. challenge to the complaint and inquiry report. (Para 2)
3. request for expedited proceedings by the tribunal. (Para 3)
4. final order for closure of pending applications. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)

[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]

1. This writ petition is directed against the orders dated 30.10.2018 and 17.01.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `the Tribunal') in O.A. No.2130/2018.

1.1. Ms. Arti Bansal, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that the impact of the impugned interlocutory orders passed by the Tribunal is that the petitioners are not able to continue with the disciplinary proceedings.

1.2. According to Ms. Arti Bansal, a charge memo has been served on the respondent.

1.3. To be noted, there is no dispute about the fact that the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) has rendered an inquiry report qua the respondent, concerning the allegation made against him by a female employee engaged with the National Film Development Corporation Limited (NFDC). The allegation made by the complainant is that she was subjected to sexual harassment by the respondent. The ICC submitted the enquiry report, in this behalf, on 23.02.2018.

2. Mr. Mukti Bodh, who appears on behalf of the respondent, says that the respondent has challenged, before the Tribunal, the complaint, dated 01.11.2017, and the aforementioned inquiry report, dated 23.02.2018. 2.1. Besides this, Mr. Bodh says that, the consequential orders, issued by the petitioner nos. 1 to 3, have also been challenged before the Tribunal.

3. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal is seized with the main matter, we are inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a request to the Tribunal to dispose of the pending application, i.e., O.A. No.2130/2018, titled `Rajnish Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.' at the earliest, though not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgement.

4. It is ordered accordingly. Pending application shall also stand closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document