Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14945
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
K.Haripal, Judicial Member, K.V.Eapen, Administrative Member
P.V. Velayudhan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A.No.198/2022|O.A.No.461/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Shafik M Abdul Khadir, Mr.K.E.Hadhik Jazar, Ms.Girija P.
For the Respondents: Mr.Sreedutt S., ACGSC
ICC inquiry for sexual harassment must follow CCS(CCA) Rule 14 procedures; procedural lapses vitiate disciplinary action against retired officer.
Headnote:The judgment addresses violations under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021 particularly Rule 8, CCS(CCA) Rules particularly Rule 14(2) proviso, and General Clauses Act, 1897 S.6(b). Essential facts involve a retired Joint Director facing sexual harassment allegations from a subordinate, leading to flawed ICC inquiry, charge sheets, delayed retirement benefits, and provisional pension denial. Court finds procedural lapses in ICC inquiry, inapplicability of limitation, but upholds 2021 Pension Rules applicability post-retirement. Issues framed include validity of post-retirement charge sheet under Rule 8 CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, compliance with Rule 14(2) CCS(CCA) Rules proviso deeming ICC as inquiring authority, and natural justice in telephonic hearings without cross-examination. Ratio decidendi emphasizes ICC must follow CCS(CCA) inquiry procedures; superficial online inquiry without complaint copy or witness cross-examination vitiates proceedings, quashing charge sheet despite grave WhatsApp message evidence. Charge sheet quashed; respondents directed to release all retiral benefits within 90 days with interest thereafter.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consolidation of related oas for common disposal. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. challenges to charge sheets and pension withholding. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. evidence of misconduct via inappropriate messages. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. applicability of 2021 pension rules; lcc validity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. icc must follow ccs(cca) rule 14 procedures. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. quash charge sheet; release retiral benefits. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal
Parties in both these Original Applications are one and the same. O.A.461/2023 is in fact the tail piece of O.A. 198/2022 and has been filed for meeting the subsequent developments. Thus both the cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The applicant is a retired Joint Director of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Institute, Hubli. He is a graduate in Mechanical Engineering and was working in Defence Production department since 1996. While so, he was inducted in the Group-A cadre in the Ministry of MSME, through the UPSC in 1999. During 2018-2020 he was working in Thrissur as Joint Director. While so, one Smt.Anusha was Assistant Director under him. According to the applicant, on account of the malfeasance and non-feasance on the part of Anusha, he had to take tough stand against her. Then she proceeded on Child Care Leave and sent a fabricated complaint invoking provisions under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Act for short. The Local Complaint Committee, LCC, made earnest attempts to enquire into the allegations after giving notice to the applicant as well as to Smt.Anusha. But she refused to co-operate. Accordingly, the LCC submitted its report concluding that the individual could not substantiate the complaint. However, on the basis of the fabricated complaint sent by her to the 2nd respondent the Chairperson of Internal Complaint Committee, ICC for short, Ms.Mandeep Kaur conducted a telephonic enquiry on 12.12.2019. The applicant attended the enquiry as an obedient Government servant. The said committee, without following the procedure or maintaining confidentiality gave a report tarnishing his image. The applicant was also transferred to the Headquarters from Thrissur office with immediate effect. Thereafter he was served with a memo of charges on 17.09.2020. He gave his detailed written statement of defence on 24.09.2020. Thereafter nothing was heard from the disciplinary authority. While so, the applicant retired on superannuation on 31.05.2021. Even after long lapse of time, since he was not granted pension or other retiral benefits he approached this Tribunal with O.A.198/2022 seeking release of retirement benefits along with interest as per Rule 65 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 2021.
3. The respondents filed reply opposing the prayers. According to them, the applicant is facing disciplinary proceedings after having found guilty of sexual harassment at work place, on the basis of the finding of the ICC. Regarding the report of the LCC appointed by the applicant it was said that such a committee was headed by a Joint Director subordinate to the applicant. The said Anusha had not given her version before that committee and that was how the 2nd respondent had appointed an ICC which gave its report implicating the applicant. On that basis, a charge sheet has been issued to the applicant. However, before retirement no further action could be taken and that charge sheet was withdrawn on 04.01.2023. Simultaneously, fresh charge sheet has been issued invoking Rule 8 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021. It is further stated that, meanwhile, the applicant has been granted provisional pension equivalent to maximum pension; for want of vigilance clearance he cannot be granted pension and DCRG. Thus O.A.198/2022 is sought to be dismissed in the light of the subsequent development, issuing orders granting provisional pension.
4. O.A.461/20
