Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established procedures and principles of natural justice, particularly in cases of sexual harassment, to ensure fairness and legality.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 3

(C) and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Inquiry report and punishment order challenged - The applicant, a Postal Assistant, was subjected to compulsory retirement based on an inquiry report that lacked substantial evidence and violated principles of natural justice. The inquiry committee failed to follow the prescribed procedures, including providing the applicant with the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The court found that the disciplinary authority acted beyond its competence and did not adhere to the required procedural safeguards. (Paras 2, 10, 14)

(B) Natural Justice - The principles of natural justice must be adhered to in disciplinary proceedings, particularly in cases of sexual harassment, where the accused must be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves. (Paras 10, 12)

(C) Competence of Authority - The authority imposing punishment must be competent to do so, and any action taken without following due process is liable to be quashed. (Paras 14)

Facts of the case:
The applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds and faced allegations of sexual harassment. An inquiry committee found insufficient evidence against him, yet he was subjected to compulsory retirement based on a subsequent inquiry report.

Findings of Court:
The inquiry report and punishment order were quashed due to procedural irregularities and lack of evidence.

Issues: The main issues included whether the inquiry followed proper procedures and whether the disciplinary authority had the competence to impose the punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the inquiry committee must adhere to CCS (CCA) Rules, ensuring the accused's right to a fair hearing and proper procedure.

Result: The inquiry report, punishment order, and appellate order were quashed, and the inquiry was to be restarted in accordance with the law.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

“(i)The Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned inquiry report dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure-A-1) and impugned punishment order dated 5-9-2012 and also impugned appellate order dt 28.1.2013 (Annexure A-2/A) which are illegal and against the law of natural justice and against the Rule and further direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits.

(ii)The Hon’ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass any other appropriate orders in favour of the applicant.

(iii)To impose cost on the respondents for harassing the applicant and payable to the applicant.”

2. A brief account of the facts involved in this case are that the applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant under the Control and Supervision of the respondents on compassionate ground on 08.06.1992. While working as Postal Assistant, the applicant was served with major punishment charge sheet under Rule 14 of C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 vide Memo dated 30.11.2009 on the alleged charges of sexual harassment of his colleague i.e. Smt.

Urmila, Postal Assistant Varanasi Cantt. On complaint of Smt.

Urmila, Postal Assistant, a joint inquiry was done by the Inquiry Officers and they submitted a joint inquiry report and gave a report that there was no substantial evidence produced by the complainant against the applicant, therefore, the applicant cannot be held guilty. The aforesaid complaint dated 05.09.2009 was also made to Sexual Harassment Complaint Committee with letter of Circle Office dated 20.05.2011. The aforesaid Committee was formed by the department under the Guidelines and Norms laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others. After the aforesaid instructions dated 13.02.1998, amendment was made in the C.C.S.

(Conduct) Rules, 1964 in rule 3 and Rule 3(C) was added for making the conduct amounting to sexual harassment of women workers as misconduct. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued letter dated 18.06.2012 and asked the applicant to submit his representation within 15 days against the inquiry report submitted by the Sexual Harassment Complaint Committee which was supplied through the letter. The applicant submitted his detailed representation against the inquiry report submitted by the Sexual Harassment Complaint Committe dated 18.04.2012 on 25.06.2012 denying the charges. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued letter/ Memo dated 19.07.2012 vide which charge memo dated 30.11.2009 was dropped with immediate effect. After dropping the chargesheet, disciplinary authority issued letter dated 23.07.2012 and again asked for the representation against the Sexual Harassment Compliant Committee’s inquiry report dated 18.04.2012 and the applicant represented to him and told that as the charge sheet was dropped vide letter dated 19.07.2012, there is no way or existence of the inquiry report or disciplinary proceedings against the applicant vide his representation dated 26.07.2012. The disciplinary authority again issued letter dated 02.08.2012 and again asked the applicant to submit his representation against the inquiry report submitted by the Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee. The applicant represented to the disciplinary authority and reiterating his stand. The disciplinary authority again asked the applicant to submit his representation against the inquiry report dated 18.04.2012 vide its letter dated 13.08.2012 and the applicant represented through the letter dated 21.08.2012. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order dated 05.09.2012 vide which the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon the applicant on the basis of the inquiry report submitted by the Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee dated 18.04.2012. The applicant mad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2539

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALMr. Justice Om Prakash VII, J, Mr. Mohan Pyare, AJ S Srivastava – AppellantVersusUnion Of India – RespondentO.A./1596/2012

Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to established procedures and principles of natural justice, particularly in cases of sexual harassment, to ensure fairness and legality.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, J, Mr. Mohan Pyare, A
J S Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
O.A./1596/2012