ORDER :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

The Internal Complaints Committee on sexual harassment of women at workplace has issued a memorandum to the petitioner on 28.05.2021 under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965. Competence of the complaints committee to issue this memorandum is the main contention raised in this petition.

2. Facts leading to filing of the writ petition :

2(i) Petitioner qualified H.P. State Administrative Services Combined examination in the year 2008 and was selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police (HPPS). He was thereafter promoted as an Additional Superintendent of Police in September, 2017.

2(ii) A complaint of sexual harassment at workplace was lodged against the petitioner on 11.05.2021. The Superintendent of Police Shimla sent the complaint to the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh-respondent No. 2. FIR No. 14 of 2021 was registered against the petitioner at Women Police Station Shimla on 13.05.2021 under Sections 354 and 354A(1)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge Shimla on 03.06.2021.

2(iii) The complaint dated 11.05.2021 was also sent to the Internal Complaint Committee on Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace-respondent No.3 (ICC). Respondent No. 3 issued a memo to the petitioner on 28.05.2021 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 [in short the CCS(CCA) Rules 1965]. Petitioner was called upon to submit his reply to the memo within 10 days. Petitioner filed his reply on 04.06.2021, denying the charges and alleged violation of principles of natural justice. He stated that he had not been supplied copy of the complaint, copy of fact finding inquiry report, if any, etc.

2(iv) Respondent No. 3 sent a notice dated 08.06.2021, calling upon the petitioner to appear before it at Police Headquarter Shimla on 10.06.2021 for inquiry proceedings. Petitioner appeared before respondent No. 3 and came to know that statements of two witnesses had already been recorded. Petitioner was supposed to cross examine these witnesses, but he was under the impression that he had been called for personal hearing. Caught unaware, he requested for deferring the cross examination of these two witnesses. His request was accepted. Later in the day, another notice was served upon him for appearance before the ICC on 11.06.2021. Petitioner appeared and submitted a representation for staying the proceedings pointing out the legal requirements, shortcomings and procedural lapses on part of ICC in conduct of the inquiry. He also raised an issue of denial of fair opportunity of defence. According to the petitioner, his representation went unconsidered, rather ICC examined one more witness on 11.06.2021. Unprepared, petitioner again took an adjournment for cross examination of this witness as well. Further proceedings were fixed for 14.06.2021.

2(v) Aggrieved with mode and manner of conduct of inquiry by the ICC, petitioner preferred instant writ petition with following reliefs :-

“i) That Memorandum dated 28.05.2021 (Annexure P-3) issued by respondent No. 4 as Chairperson of respondent No. 3 may kindly be held wrong, patently illegal and contrary to the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 and, therefore, may kindly be set aside.

(ii) That the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3 pursuant to issuance of Annexure P-3 may kindly be held wrong, illegal and violative of the procedure prescribed for initiation of inquiry in such cases and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(iii) That in the alternative since the proceedings against the petitioner after issuance of Annexure P-3 are based upon same set of facts founded on complaint, allegations and is also a subject matter of FIR No. 14 of 2021, therefore, departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner may kindly be kept in abeyance till the completion of the trial arising out of FIR No. 14 of 2021.”

During hearing of the case, Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned Sen