A disciplinary inquiry must adhere to statutory procedural requirements, but procedural irregularities that do not affect substantive rights or show prejudice do not warrant judicial intervention, particularly when proceedings remain ongoing.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner assails the correctness of an Office Order dated 02.02.2015 issued by the Respondent No.2, leading to an Inquiry Report dated 01.11.2021 and a consequent Show Cause Notice dated 09.02.2022 issued against the Petitioner.

BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. The issues requiring adjudication of this Court in the present Petition are two-folded. Firstly, whether the Respondent No.2 has failed to act in compliance with the prescribed rules under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1965’] and the Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (‘DoPT’) [hereinafter referred to as OM of 2015] thereby rendering the inquiry report and all consequential proceedings void ab initio in eyes of law. Secondly, the question arises whether a constitutional court should interfere at a stage when final order in the Disciplinary Proceedings, arising from the complaint of sexual harassment at workplace, has not yet been passed, in absence of patent illegality.

3. Since the issues before this Court pertains solely with respect to the misapplication of law, it is considered neither necessary nor appropriate to set out the detailed factual matrix leading to the present case. In view thereof, only the facts relevant and/or material for the adjudication of the issues at hand shall be referred to hereinafter.

4. The Respondent No.2 in the month of November 2014, issued a Standing Order No. 08/2014 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SO of 2014’] implementing the provisions of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’] and reiterating the applicability of relevant service rules to the Charged Officers. On 17.01.2015, the Respondent No.4 filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the Petitioner and his senior, Mr. R. Rajasekaran under Rule 3(c) of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1964’].

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the Respondent No.2 vide Order No. C.IV.-01/2015-Vig dated 02.02.2015 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Order/IO of 2015’] constituted CLICC/Respondent No.3 for inquiry of the aforesaid complaint, in accordance with the statutory provisions prevailing at the time, including the Act of 2013, SO of 2014 and Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965. Parallelly, the OM of 2015 was issued by the DoPT, prescribing implementation of ‘Steps for Conduct of Inquiry in complaints of Sexual Harassment’ to be adopted by the Complaints Committees of the respective departments. 6. Where after, the proceedings before Respondent No.3 were conducted in stages, with changes in its composition over time to ensure continuity. The Respondent No.3, while adhering to the procedural guidelines as per the mandatory relevant statutory provisions, afforded the Petitioner multiple opportunities to be heard, including the right to submit his written submission, raise objection and provide documents and witnesses supporting his case.

7. Consequently, Respondent No.3 upon appreciation of statements and evidence produced before it by the Petitioner and Respondent No.4 submitted the impugned Inquiry Report dated 01.11.2021 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Report/IR of 2021]

to the Disciplinary Authority. As per the IR of 2021, the imputations of misconduct against the Petitioner stood proved as he was found indulged in sexually harassing the Respondent No.4, thereby recommending strict disciplinary actions