Point of Law: Removal of service - Sexual harassment at work place - Regular enquiry conducted by the ICC - No disciplinary enquiry is necessary and based upon ICC enquiry officer’s report, the respondents have rightly removed the petitioner from service.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the suspension order dated 06-07-2016 issued by the Disciplinary Authority, report dated 20-01-2017 of the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC), Memo dated 30-01-2017 of the Disciplinary Authority, order of removal dated 24-03-2017 of the Disciplinary Authority, order dated 29-06-2017 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority and also order dated 17-05-2017 of the Executive Director HR forfeiting the gratuity, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘the Act 2013’) Government of India OM No. 11013/2/2014/EsttAIII dated 16-07-2015, Guidelines on Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place dated 04-05-2016 issued by the respondent Organization and also against the GAIL Employees’ CDA Rules 1986, and set aside the same.

2. Heard Sri. Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri. S. Lakshmikanth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. D.V. Seetharam Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri. S. Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that initially he was appointed in the respondents-Corporation on 31-07-1995 as Deputy Manager (P&A) at Hazira, Surat and he has been discharging his duties to the best satisfaction of his superiors and everyone concerned. After rendering considerable length of service, the petitioner was promoted as Manager (HR) on 01-07-1999 and the petitioner was further promoted as Senior Manager (HR) on 01-04-2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was further promoted as Chief Manager (HR) during April 2010. The petitioner was actually entitled for promotion to E-6 Grade from 01-04-2009 but the respondents have not considered his case. Then challenging the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion to the E-6 Grade, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 28699 of 2011 before the High Court of Madras, Chennai and the same is pending.

4. The petitioner has been transferred to various places and since he has raised the issue of corruption and illegalities in the Corporation, the respondents had a grudge against him and so he was subjected to series of transfers to Alibagh, Rajahmundry, Bangalore, Kochi, Bangalore, Ghandar and Pondicherry and finally, he was transferred to the Zonal Office, Hyderabad on 29-02-2016 as Chief Manager (HR) and the respondents have falsely implicated him in a sexual harassment case alleged to have been committed by the petitioner on the contract female workers working at Hyderabad. The case was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘ICC’) as established under the Act, 2013.

5. The ICC undertook the preliminary enquiry on the basis of four complaints dated 29-05-2016, 02-06-2016, 08-06-2016 and 10-06-2016 and the report of the preliminary investigation conducted by the ICC was submitted to the disciplinary authority on 20-01-2017 with a finding that some of the allegations levelled against the petitioner were proved and in respect of some allegations, it was held as not proved. Even before the ICC would submit its report, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide proceedings dated 06-07-2016 under Rule 25 of the GAIL Employees’ (CDA) Rules, 1986. Thereafter, the ICC report was communicated to the petitioner on 02-02-2017 so as to enable the petitioner to submit his objections by 15-02-2017 and personal hearing was fixed on 17-02-2017.

6. The petitioner has submitted his objections to the said ICC report on 22-02-2017 and the petitioner has also attended the personal hearing extended by the respondents on 27-02-2017. The petitioner has reiterated his defence saying that he is not responsible for any of the allegations levelled against him and contended that he was falsely implicated in the sexual harassment case as a counter blast, as on the earlier occasion, he has raised corrup