Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.

The Complaints Committee on an enquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment found the petitioner guilty of the charge. As a consequence, the petitioner has been inflicted with the penalty of reduction to the lower post/grade of Sub-Inspector for a period of three years, which shall be a bar to his promotion during such period to the post/grade of Asstt. Commandant, with further directions that after the expiry of this period he will not regain his original seniority and that the period of reduction will have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay; of which the petitioner is aggrieved of. Hence, he has instituted the present writ application with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 18th June, 2012 (Annexure-1).

2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the petitioner was proceeded with by the 'Complaints Committee' on the allegations of charge for sexual harassment as complained by Lady Constable-Baljeet Kaur, CISF Unit, ASG, Ahmedabad. The 'Complaints Committee' on an enquiry, recorded its findings on 29th June, 2010, and concluded that the incident of May, 2007, could not be conclusively established as the date of incident was not provided by the complainant. With reference to the incident of October, 2007, the Committee returned a finding of guilt on the allegations made by the Lady Constable-Baljeet Kaur against the petitioner-Naimish Kumar the then Sub-Inspector(Executive) now Asstt. Commandant) for he touched her in-appropriately on her cheek, which was derogatory to the dignity of a woman. On a consultation, the Union Public Service Commission (for short, 'UPSC') advised for the penalty vide communication dated 25th April, 2012. Accordingly, the petitioner has been inflicted with the penalty vide impugned order dated 18th June, 2012 (Annexure-1), collectively.

3. Learned senior counsel Mr. R.N. Mathur, for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application has assailed the impugned order inflicting penalty on three grounds. Firstly, the complainant and the witnesses were biased against the petitioner for on the basis of the report submitted by the petitioner and evidence tendered against them in an enquiry they were suitably punished by the Disciplinary Authority and thereafter they were transferred to different places. Secondly, the charge-sheet is vague and; Thirdly, the petitioner was denied opportunity to produce the witnesses as he wanted to produce Mr. Sanjit Das in support of his defence.

4. On facts, the learned counsel would submit that there is no eye witness of the incident. Moreover the Disciplinary Authority acted contrary to the evidence on record.

5. According to the learned counsel, the 'Complaints Committee' while recording its findings on 29th June, 2010, concluded that the occurrence of May, 2007, was not conclusively established as the date of incident could not be furnished by the complainant. Therefore, the same reasoning holds good for the incident of October, 2007, and thus, the findings arrived at by the Complaints Committee are self-contradictory.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset gave up the argument with reference to issuance of charge-sheet by the Disciplinary Authority in view of the amendment of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965'), which contemplates that the 'Complaints Committee' shall be deemed to be the enquiry authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of Rules of 1965 in view of the Notification dated 1st July, 2004 amending Rule 14 (2) of the Rules of 1965.

7. Learned counsel emphatically contended that vide order dated 30th September, 1999 (Annexure-2), the petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Commandant/Exe. in CISF through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short