IMPORTANT POINTS
The CCS (Conduct) Rules were amended by the Government in the year 1998 incorporating the instances of sexual harassment, as defined by the Supreme Court, by way of Rule 3C of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and thereafter, the manner in which it is to be dealt with was provided by amending the CCS(CCA)Rules, particularly by incorporating a 'proviso' to Rules 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules-A proper legislation as directed by the Apex Court could be brought about, nearly 16 years thereafter, when the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (Act 14 of 2013) (w.e.f. 09.12.2013) was enacted.Supreme Court reported in AIR 1970 SC 470 (Rabindra Nath vs. Union of India ) and in (2014 AIR SC2 1142 = (2014)4 SCC 108) Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T. Murali Babu, are followed.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

1. This is a case where sexual advancement was made by the petitioner, while working as a Teacher, against a student who was pursuing her studies in the 10th standard. The challenge is against the proceedings completed by the disciplinary authority ordering removal from the service invoking summary procedure as envisaged under Annexure A18 notification dated 20.12.1993, the confirmation made by the appellate authority and the interference declined by the CAT.

2. The sequence of events as revealed from the proceedings and as put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the petitioner was proceeded against in respect of the misconduct as above and he was suspended from the service way back in the year 2002. The charges levelled against him were enquired into under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules [CCS (CCA) Rules], which ultimately ended up in the removal from service. After filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner moved the CAT by filing O.A.No.322 of 2005, which was disposed of directing the appellate authority to consider the matter. Pursuant to the said verdict, the matter was considered by the appellate authority, who set aside the order of punishment, observing that copy of the enquiry report was not served to the charged official. Thereafter, copy of the enquiry report was served, objections were called for and the matter was re-considered, leading to Annexure A13 order removing the petitioner from service. This was also subjected to challenge by filing an appeal, wherein no order was passed, when the petitioner moved the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.373 of 2007. When the said O.A. was pending, the appellate authority observed that the disciplinary authority, who passed the order of removal, was part of the enquiring authority earlier and as such, the matter required to be reconsidered by constituting proper/adhoc disciplinary authority. In the course of further proceedings, the authorities concerned sought to pursue 'summary proceedings' as envisaged under Annexure-A18, which was objected to by the petitioner. Admittedly, he did not participate in the summary enquiry under Annexure-A18 and after considering the available materials on record, the second respondent arrived at the guilt of the petitioner and removed him from the service as per Annexure-A20 order dated 04.10.2010. This was sought to be challenged by way of appeal, where interference was declined by the appellate authority, i.e., the first respondent, who confirmed the punishment as per Annexure-A23. This made the petitioner to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A.No.491 of 2012, wherein Ext.P1 order was passed by the Tribunal declining interference, which forms the subject matter of challenge in this Original petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the entire course and proceedings pursued by the concerned respondents and the verdict passed by the Tribunal are not at all correct or sustainable either in law or on facts. It is pointed out that as per the relevant rules, only one enquiry is contemplated and there cannot be any second enquiry or fresh enquiry. If at all any defect is there in the original enquiry, it is, of course, possible to proceed with further enquiry in terms of Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. This being the position, there could not have been any recourse to 'summary trial' envisaged under Annexure-A18 Notification. Reliance is sought to be placed on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1971 SC 1447 (K.R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong). The learned counsel further submits that, even if Annexure-A18 Notification is made applicable, two conditions envisaged there are required to be satisfied-the Director has to form an opinion as to the circumstances under which regular enquiry could not be pursued or proc