The court emphasized that procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice must be strictly adhered to in disciplinary inquiries against probationers, including the right to be heard and to cross-examine witnesses.

JUDGMENT

MADHU JAIN, J.

1. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 719/2023, titled Naresh v. Union of India & Ors. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’), whereby the O.A. filed by the respondent herein was allowed.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent was appointed to the post of Workshop Foreman at the Indian Institute of Handloom Technology (IIHT), Guwahati, on 10.08.2020 on a direct recruitment basis. Subsequently, by a Complaint dated 02.12.2021 submitted by a 2^nd year girl student of the said Institute, the respondent was accused of serious misdemeanor towards girl students.

3. In order to inquire into the said allegations of misdemeanors, the Director of the Institute constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as contemplated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and the respondent was placed under suspension, vide Order dated 09.12.2021 in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The complaint was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of IIHT, Guwahati, constituted by the Director of IIHT, Guwahati vide Order dated 10.12.2021, under the chairmanship of Smt. K. Basumatary, Junior Lecturer (Textiles), IIHT, Guwahati, to inquire into the allegations against the respondent. A copy of the Order dated 10.12.2021, whereby the ICC of IIHT, Guwahati was constituted by the Director, was duly provided to the respondent.

4. The ICC conducted three meetings dated 13.12.2021, 12.01.2022, and 07.02.2022 at IIHT, Guwahati, to proceed with the inquiry against the respondent.

5. An opportunity was granted to the respondent, vide Notice No. IHTG/Estt-(136)/126-17/135 dated 14.12.2021, to submit his representation in response to the complaint dated 02.12.2021.

6. The respondent submitted his reply to the said notice on 21.12.2021. It is the case of the petitioners that in his reply, the respondent admitted his misconduct and stated that he would not repeat such conduct in the future.

7. Based on the observations made by the ICC in its 3^rd meeting dated 07.02.2022, the petitioners issued an Order dated 25.03.2022, stating that the recommendations of the ICC had been accepted by the competent authority and that due procedure under Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, governing the conduct of inquiry, had been followed. It was further stated that the respondent, being a probationer and under suspension at the relevant time, was terminated from Government service with immediate effect. The said order further observed as follows:

“The accused person, Shri Naresh, is a young Government official and the offence committed by himfor temptingthe teenage girl students,his act of intimidation towards girl students cannot be ignoredandif it isnotpreventedat thisstage, he would be encouraged for committing more offences among girl students and therefore, the ICC has recommended suitable action required to be taken for removing Shri Naresh from service from the institute after taking into consideration of the risk factors for girl students.”

8. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal on 07.05.2022 before the Appellate Authority