ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A): By way of this OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief(s) :- “(i) call for the records of the case; (ii) quash and set aside the Report of the Internal Complaints Committee dated 12/12/2015, the Order dated 6/01/2016 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing a very harsh punishment of removal from service and the Order dated 16/05/2016 passed by the Appellate Authority; and (iii) direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits; (iv) Award cost of the proceedings; and (v) to pass such other and further orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case, in brief, as indicated in the OA are that the applicant joined the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) in the year 2005 as Station Controller/Train Operator and was posted at Training Institute. While working as Controller at Jhandewalan Metro Station, some misunderstanding occurred with a lady employee who worked as TOM Operator at the same Metro Station and consequently a complaint against the applicant came to be lodged alleging (3) sexual harassment to the complainant. On receipt of the said complaint, the Station Manager/JW obtained the statements of both the parties and forwarded the same to DGM-III who referred the complaint to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted for non-executive employees vide DMRCletter dated 17.09.2015 for further investigation vide hisReport dated 15.09.2015. On receipt of the said complaint,the ICC of the DMRC issued a notice dated 05.10.2015 to the applicant to submit his written reply. In his reply dated19.10.2015 to the said notice, the applicant clarified that he was not involved in any matter of harassment of any kind to any person. The ICC conducted the fact finding inquiry in which simply statements of the complainant and the applicant (against whom the allegations were made) were recorded along with other witnesses and came to a prima facie conclusion that the applicant committed misconduct of sexual harassment of a female employee within the meaning of S.

2(n) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and misconduct under Clause 5.22 of Rule 5 of DMRC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules. It is submitted that while dealing with the subject complaint, the ICC determinedly got biased and thus deliberately ignored the extant rules/guidelines of (4) the DOP&T, as contained in their OM dated 16.07.2015. Para 8 of these instructions is reproduced below:

"Para 8. Xx xx the complaints of sexual harassment are required to be handled by Complaints Committee. On receipt of a complaint, facts of the allegation are required to be verified. This is called preliminary enquiry/fact finding enquiry or investigation. The Complains Committee conducts the investigation. They may then try to ascertain the truth of the allegations by collecting the documentary evidence as well as recording statements of any possible witnesses including the complainant. If it becomes necessary to issue a charge Sheet, disciplinary authority relies on the investigation for drafting the imputations, as well as for evidence by which the charges are to be proved.

Therefore this a very important part of the investigation."

3. It is submitted that the Report of the Complaints Committee simply states that the "ICC is of prima facie view that version of complainant appears to be true and established". The Report thus given by the ICC holding the applicant prima facie guilty of misconduct describes only the fact that it was only a fact finding exercise to ascertain the truth of the allegations and not a formal departmental inquiry as envisaged by Proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules.

The said proviso reads as under:

"Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment withi