SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14058

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Krishna, A, Shri M.G. Sewlikar, J
Ms. Anupama Raut Alias Anupama Narnaware – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.08/2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri V.A. Nagrani
For the Respondents: Ms. Vaishali Choudhari

The court reaffirmed that an inability to substantiate harassment claims does not lead to penal action against the complainant, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the independence of disciplinary inquiries.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Chargesheet and dismissal from service - Applicant claimed charges were based on prior dropped allegations; Inquiry conducted with no proof against her - Second chargesheet issued on same facts is seen as illegal and arbitrary. (Paras 2, 3, 8, and 11)

(B) Natural Justice - The impugned dismissal order was cryptic, lacking reasoning and did not comply with principles of natural justice - Outside influence was evident in the issuance of chargesheet influencing impartiality. (Paras 2.3, 8.1, and 11)

(C) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Charges alleging false complaint were unfounded - An inability to substantiate a complaint does not necessitate punitive action against the complainant. (Paras 4.2, 8.1, and 8.5)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, previously exonerated from allegations of sexual harassment, faced renewed charges a decade later without notifying her about the decision that dropped prior charges.

Findings of Court:
Dismissal order quashed due to lack of basis and reasoning, reinstating the applicant with consequential benefits due to procedural failure.

Issues: The improper issuance of repeated charges, the lack of impartial inquiry, and the principles of natural justice were core to the court's considerations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the earlier dropped charges could not be reinstated, affirming that procedural fairness must be more than a mere formality, emphasizing the necessity for independent application of mind in disciplinary actions.

Result: The Original Application was allowed; the applicant was reinstated.

Table of Content
1. initial facts and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of the inquiries and previous charges. (Para 3)

ORDER

Per: Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (Administrative)

The Applicant, aggrieved by two chargesheets dated 21st April, 2023 and 30th August, 2023 which culminated in passing of the order of dismissal from service dated 11th December, 2023, has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 to quash and set aside the above chargesheets and order of dismissal and to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including backwages.

2 . Brief facts, as stated in the OA, are that the applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 26th September, 1994 and subsequently, promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in March, 2012. The applicant filed a police complaint at the police station at Nagpur on 11th April, 2012 against four officials for sexual harassment on the basis of which a criminal case No.3470/2014 cause to be filed which is pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The applicant had also filed a complaint to the Secretary (Respondent No.1) on 07th May, 2012 for redressal of her grievance about sexual harassment at workplace. The applicant was issued a charge memorandum dated 22nd May, 2012 alleging that instead of approaching the Complaints Committee constituted by CBWE on 23rd February, 2010 to deal with the cases of sexual harassment, the applicant had directly approached the police and press and thus bypassed the well laid down official procedure and failed to keep the oath taken by her and indulged in such activities which is against the Establishment Rules. The Inquiry was conducted and the Inquiry Officer held that charges were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and also looking at her satisfactory performance of official duties, the charges were dropped.

2.1 It is averred that on her complaint of sexual harassment addressed to the Secretary (Respondent No.1), the inquiry committee was constituted. However, since the applicant had complained against the highest authority of the department, she did not participate in the inquiry and had intimated that she is not having any faith on the committee for the reason that the committee is working under respondent No.2 against whom she had filed the said complaint and, accordingly, the report was submitted holding that the charges levelled against the applicant could not be proved. It has been submitted that after the first chargesheet was dropped vide order dated 22nd March, 2013, the respondents have again issued the charge memorandum dated 21st April, 2023 alleging that the applicant had levelled serious false allegations against four senior officials in 2012 and without prior intimation to her office and approaching the Internal Sexual Harassment Committee had approached directly to the Local Newspaper/Press and lodged a complaint at Nagpur Police Station in 2012 against four senior most officials of the Board. It has been submitted that the second charge sheet dated 21st April, 2023 is similar to the one which was issued on 22nd May, 2012 which was drafted on 22nd March, 2013. Thus, the respondents have issued second chargesheet on the same facts on which first chargesheet was served and subsequently dropped. It has been submitted that the applicant on the basis of second chargesheet in which inquiry has been again conducted, she had submitted that she does not wish to persue the said complaint as the matter is sub-judice . But inspite of that, the Inquiry Officer concluded that the charges are proved and submitted its report dated 26th September, 2023 to impose a major penalty for tarnishing the image of the Board and to avoid illegal activity by an employee in future in the Board.

2.2 It has been submitted that on receipt of report of the Inquiry Officer, the applicant submitted her reply dated 27th October, 2023 in which she has stated that since the issue pertains to incident almost a de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top