The Internal Complaints Committee must conduct a full-fledged inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment, in accordance with legal provisions, rather than a preliminary inquiry prior to issuing a charge-sheet.

ORDER

Per :Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (J)

OA No.897/2022 –

Both these OAs are being disposed off by this common order as they are inter-connected.

OA No.886/2022 -

Challenge in this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 is to the charge memorandum dated07^th December, 2021.

2. Facts in brief are that the applicant is working as Director Airworthiness in the office of Director General of Civilian Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation and is presently posted in Mumbai since August, 2020. Since then the applicant is working at Mumbai. The respondent No.3 (her name is withheld to protect her identity) was working as a Junior Clerk on contract basis in the office of the Deputy Director General, Civil Aviation Bangalore through M/s Squad 7 Security and Allied Services, Secunderabad. She was appointed on contract basis and the contract was come to an end on 30^th November, 2020. On 11^th June, 2020, the respondent No.3 misbehaved with the applicant as a consequence of which applicant mailed a report dated 12^th June, 2020 to the Deputy Director General of Civil Aviation, Bengaluru pointing out the conduct of the respondent No.3 and recommended her services to be terminated with immediate effect. Accordingly, by email dated 15^th June, 2020, the services of the respondent No.3 were directed to be terminated with effect from 01^st July, 2020. The respondent No.3 got the inkling that her services were to be terminated from 01^st July, 2020 and, therefore, she lodged a false complaint against the applicant and other officers vide email dated 30^th June, 2020 under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred as ‘PoSH Act’). This complaint is an afterthought. By the email dated 30^th June, 2020, the applicant was called upon to submit his reply to the accusations leveled against the applicant. The applicant submitted his reply on 30^th July, 2020 and denied all the allegations made against him.

2(a). The Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) was constituted consequent upon the complaint lodged by the complainant. The applicant attended the said meeting of ICC on 13^th August, 2020 and submitted detailed para-wise reply on 14^th August, 2020.

2(b). The applicant received email dated 27^th October, 2020 from Ms. Tuhinanshu Sharma, DDG mentioning therein that the respondent No.3 had levelled additional allegations against the applicant vide application dated 19^th October, 2020 and the applicant was called upon to reply to those allegations. The applicant submitted his reply on 20^th October, 2020 to the allegation made in the additional complaint dated 19^th October, 2020.

2(c). Thereafter, the memorandum of charge came to be issued to the applicant. The applicant submitted reply to the said memorandum of charge. This charge-sheet is impugned in this OA. It is the contention of the applicant that on false complaint memorandum of charge has been issued. No finding of the Committee has been communicated to the applicant. Without providing any finding or report of ICC as regards sexual harassment at Workplace, the impugned memorandum has been issued.

3. The respondents filed their reply. They contend that the OA is premature as no final order in the lis has been passed. The matter is still under consideration before the ICC. They contend that the ICC conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted report of the preliminary enquiry to the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of which Disciplinary Authority has issued the charge-sheet to the applicant. The applicant had appeared before the ICC and has also participated the proceedings before ICC. They contend that the preliminary enquiry has been carried out in accordance with the OM issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The OA is premature. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the OA.

4. The applicant filed rejoinder. In the rejoinder, it is contended that the complaint has been submitted beyond