Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
N Nagaraju vs Institute Of Hotel Management Catering ... on 22 April, 2026
1 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.170/00360/2024
ORDER RSERVED ON: 10.04.2026
DATE OF ORDER: 22.04.2026
CORAM
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA ...MEMBER(J)
HON'BLE DR.SANJIV KUMAR ...MEMBER(A)
Shri N.Nagaraju,
S/o T.C.Nagaiah,
Aged abut 47 years,
Working as Accountant,
Institute of Hotel Management and
Catering Technology and Nutrition,
S.J.P.Campas, Near M.S.Building,
BENGALURU-560001. ....Applicant
(By Advocate, Shri Sampangi Ramaiah)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary (Tourism),
Ministry of Tourism,
Government of India,
Transport Bhavan,
No.1, Parliament Street,
New Delhi -110001.
S Sarala Devi
CAT Bangalore
S Sarala Devi
2026.04.24 16:14:14+
05'30'
2 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
2. The Chairman, Board of Governors,
Institute of Hotel Management and Catering
Technology and Nutrition,
S.J.P.Campus,
Near M.S.Building,
BENGLAURU-560001.
3. The Secretary/Principal,
Institute of Hotel Management and Catering
Technology and Nutrition,
S.J.P.Campus,
Near M.S.Building,
BENGALURU-560001. ...Respondents
(By Advocate, Shri N.Amaresh for Respondent No.1 and Shri
M.Narayana Bhat for for Respondents No.2 & 3)
ORDER
Per: Justice S.Sujatha ...........Member(J)
The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 3 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH "(i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other order quashing the Impugned Order F.No.38/1/2024-HRD dated 30.04.2024, and corrigendum dated 21.05.2024 passed by the 1st Respondent which has been produced as Annexure-
A28, along with the Penalty order No. 413/19-20 dated 19- 06-2019, passed by the 2nd and 3rd Respondent which has been produced as Annexure-A21, as the said orders are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, irrational and violate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principles of rules of natural justice.
(ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing the Respondents to restore the pay and other emoluments of the Applicant as was before the order of punishment and further re-fix the pay and emoluments of the Applicant and grant all the monetary benefits including the arrears as revised from time to time and grant liberty to the applicant to file a fresh O.A for not even screening the applicant for the zone of consideration and making eligible to be considered while granting promotion to the post of "Administrative-cum-Accounts Officer" at the institute due to the penalty imposed.
S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 4 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
(iii) Pass any such other orders or issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case including the award of the costs of this application, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that he is presently working as Accountant in the office of the Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology and Nutrition, Bengaluru. It is alleged that at the instance of the vested interest and personal bias, a false and frivolous compliant was lodged by the complainant dated 20.11.2017 against the applicant regarding certain vague charges of mis-behaviour with the staff, approval of leave to certain staff and the instances of coming to office on Saturday being holiday which are beyond the jurisdiction and powers of the applicant in the organizational hierarchy. Pursuant to the recommendations of the ICC Committee, charges were framed. The inquiry proceedings were concluded holding that the charges are proved against the applicant. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority accepting the same imposed punishment vide order dated 19.06.2019 reducing by S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 5 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH two stages in the time scale of pay of the applicant for a period of two years, with further directions that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and upon expiry of two years penalty period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay. Against which, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which came to be rejected vide order dated 29.11.2019. Being aggrieved, the applicant preferred OA No.1695/2019 before this Tribunal. This Tribunal after hearing the parties, set aside the order dated 29.11.2019 issued by the Appellate Authority and restored the matter to the file of the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made therein and to pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within the time frame fixed. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority has passed the order dated 30.04.2023 rejecting the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant has preferred this OA.
S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 6 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
3. Learned Counsel Shri Sampangi Ramaiah representing the applicant submitted that in the first round of litigation, this Tribunal having observed that since no reasoned and speaking order was passed by the Appellate Authority, setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority, remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority sans complying with the order of this Tribunal reiterated the same contents of the earlier order dated 29.11.2019 verbatim, which is bad in law and against the rules of natural justice. The impugned order dated 30.04.2023 again suffers from the same lacunae of non-recording the reasons in arriving at the decision. Nextly, learned Counsel submitted that the complainant had lodged a complaint with Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (DCRE) on 16.05.2019 alleging similar offences against the applicant. The jurisdictional police investigated the complaint and charge sheet was filed against the applicant. The trial was conducted before the jurisdictional Court in Spl. C.No.922/2019. In the said case the applicant has been acquitted vide order dated 08.10.2024. Further learned Counsel submitted that PW-3 to PW-5 S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 7 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH were introduced in the disciplinary proceedings to cure the lacunae in evidence by amending charge sheet without the approval of the competent authority which is against the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules. There is no evidence to hold the applicant guilty or delinquent for the charges framed against the applicant in the departmental inquiry, since in the special case relating to the relevant factors, the applicant has been acquitted on merits and therefore the penalty order imposed on the applicant is bad in law. The applicant who was prosecuted on a criminal charge and acquitted on merit cannot be subjected to disciplinary inquiry on the same facts again. Further it was argued that the interested witnesses PW-2 to PW-5 brought by the applicant during the inquiry were biased. The said witnesses including PW-1-Complainant had personal vendetta against the applicant. Hence no weightage could have been given to their testimony. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30'
8 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1) Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd., vs. Masood Ahmed Khan reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496
2) Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar reported in (2003) 11 SCC 519
3) OA No.3656/2016 (DD:02.02.2024), CAT, Principal Bench - Satyapal Singh Yadav vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others.
4) Rattan Lal Sharma vs. Managing Committee vs. Dr.Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary School reported in 1993 SCC (4) 10
5) Manjeet Singh vs. Indrapastha Gas Limited - Delhi High Court - W.P. (C) No.6352/2016 (DD: 24.10.2016)
6) State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Shariff reported in (1982) 2 SCC 376
7) The State, Bengaluru vs. Nagaraju N. Bengaluru - LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru - Spl.C.No.922/2019 (DD: 08.10.2024). S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 9 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
4. Per contra, learned Counsel Shri M.Narayana Bhat representing the Respondents No.2 and 3, submits that the respondents have no personal bias against the applicant herein. The applicant did not implead the persons against whom he has made allegations of personal bias as party respondents to this application. Complaint was filed by a lady employee of IHM-B, owing to harassment by the applicant, she was highly disturbed both physically and mentally. Charges framed against the applicant were clear and specific. After receiving the complaint, the Institute had constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which gave its report after affording full opportunity to the applicant with respect to the crucial evidence brought on record in examination in chief through the witnesses produced by IHM-Bangalore, the applicant failed to cross examine the relevant aspects to impeach the facts brought on record. There was not even a slightest suggestion from the applicant suggesting that the said statements are factually incorrect. On the key issue the management witnesses have clearly deposed against the applicant. According to the depositions of the S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 10 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH witnesses, the applicant had committed illegal acts involving molestation and moral turpitude which are serious in nature. Pursuant to the inquiry report submitted by the ICC, charge sheet was issued under the due authorisation by the Board of Governors and the Board of Governors have gone into the allegations contained in the charge sheet. After providing reasonable opportunity, the penalty order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The applicant has spoiled the family life of the complainant. No irregularities are found in the inquiry proceedings. After remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority in OA No.1695/2019, Appellate Authority has passed the speaking order assigning valid reasons after affording an opportunity to the applicant and other others concerned. The victim is the complainant who suffered sexual harassment from the hands of the applicant herein which disturbed her family life owing to which she has gone into near depression. The allegation of bias and prejudice is a self-serving statement. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30'
11 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
1) General Manager and others vs. B.S.N.Prasad reported in (2025) 3 SCC 601
2) Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K.Chopra reported in (1999) 1 SCC 759
3) Medha Kotwal Lele and others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 297.
5. Learned Counsel Shri N.Amaresh representing Respondent No.1 adopting the same arguments, supported the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
7. On receipt of the complaint by the complainant for continuous harassment attracting the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ('Act, 2013' for short), ICC was constituted by the Respondent Institute to examine the same. ICC after hearing S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 12 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH both the parties along with the witnesses submitted the report dated 12.01.2018, stating that the actions of the applicant against the complainant alleged were explicitly sexual harassment. It was recommended that necessary action based on the applicable service rules and the necessary code of conduct was called for, pursuant to which charge memorandum dated 11.04.2018 was issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
8. Articles of charge framed against the applicant reads thus:-
"ARTICLE OF CHARGE-I That the said Shri. N.Nagaraju, while functioning as Accountant had misbehaved with Ms. Lakshmi, Lower Division Clerk when working at Accounts Section in the pretext of working on the personal computer (PC) by touching her hand, stare badly on her body, brushing her shoulder against her. It was also reported by Ms. Lakshmi that the said Shri.N.Nagaraju had called her quite often near him and asked her to explain the subject matter of the files and looked into her upper portion of the body instead of listening to her explanations.
It was also reported by Ms.Lakshmi that the said Shri.N.Nagaraju had also on many occasion in the pretext of opening the table drawer in which Ms.Lakshmi was seated, S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 13 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH deliberately brushed over her upper body and thus sexually molested her.
It was also reported by Ms.Lakshmi that Shri.N.Nagaraju, in the pretext of typing password for an online transaction pertaining to the Institute had touched her thighs deliberately.
All the above incidents amount to sexual harassment. Also it is reported that he had mentally harassed Ms.Lakshmi by not giving her leave or permission to Ms.Lakshmi even after her explaining the reasons for such leave or permission.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE-II It is reported by Ms. Lakshmi. Lower Division Clerk that the said Shri.Nagaraju had taunted Ms. Lakshmi in front of the office Staff by her caste, questioned her integrity as to whether Ms.Lakshmi would be getting any bribe for processing the bills of IHMB staff. It is also said that the said Shri.N.Nagaraju had caused mental agony and stress to Ms. Lakshmi by his unruly behavior particularly by throwing the files of the Accounts Section in front of the remaining staff.
Also it is reported by Ms. Lakshmi that the said Mr.Nagaraju had indulged in caste discrimination and questioned her recruitment stating that because of reservation many talented people had lost their chance of recruitment based on merit. The said Shri.N. Nagaraju had also asked Ms.Lakshmi to deliberately work even after office working hours i.e. up to 6 p.m. on many occasions.
It is also complained by Ms. Lakshmi that the said Shri.Nagaraju had threatened Ms.Lakshmi with dire S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 14 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH consequences for having sent one of the service provider to him to know the payment details."
9. Being aggrieved, the applicant had preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority which was rejected vide order dated 29.11.2019. This Tribunal having not found reasons much less the valid reasons by the Appellate Authority independently applying the mind to the grounds urged by the applicant in the appeal memo, setting aside the said order, remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. No doubt the Appellate Authority has followed the same pattern as made in the earlier order dated 29.11.2019, in rejecting the appeal vide order dated 30.04.2023, in our considered opinion it would be futile exercise in remanding the matter again to the Appellate Authority. Hence we have examined the case on merits.
10. In Spl. Case No.922/2019 (DD: 08.10.2024) referred to by the learned Counsel for the applicant, the trial was held pursuant to the charge sheet submitted against the applicant for the offences punishable under Section 354(A), 354 (D) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 15 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act. The proceedings under the provision of IPC and SC/ST(POA) Act being different from the proceedings under the Act, 2013 as well as the disciplinary proceedings under the service rules, acquittal of the applicant under the proceedings in Special Case No.922/2019 would not exonerate the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings.
11. The Disciplinary Authority (Board of Governors) having decided to hold a regular inquiry on both the charges levelled against the applicant, on considering the representation submitted by the applicant in response to the charge memo, appointed the ICC as a regular inquiry authority on both the charges. The applicant was assisted by a defence assistant. It is discernible from the original file placed before the Bench that though the applicant made a detailed cross examination of the witnesses, but not succeeded to discard the testimony of the witnesses. It is well settled that the acquittal in criminal case is no ground to S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 16 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH exonerate the delinquent in disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof differs in both the proceedings. It is well settled that the adequacy of evidence adduced during disciplinary inquiry cannot be gone into in judicial review. In Para 12 and 13 of the judgment in B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others - 1995 SCC (6) 749, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus:
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30'
17 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented. The appellate authority has co- extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 18 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718], this Court held at page 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Apparel Export Promotion Council supra, has held that:
"23. The High Court was examining disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and was not dealing with criminal trial of the respondent. The High Court did not find that there was no evidence at all of any kind of molestation or assault on the person of Miss X. It appears that the High Court re-appreciated the evidence while exercising the power of judicial review and gave meaning to the expression molestation as if it was dealing with a finding in a criminal trial. ....................................... .............................................................................. ...................................................... It was not the S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 19 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH dictionary meaning of the word molestation or physical assault which was relevant. The statement of Miss X before the Enquiry Officer as well as in her complaint unambiguously conveyed in no uncertain terms as to what her complaint was. ......... .................. ........................... ..................... ............... ............ ...................... Any action or gesture, whether directly or by implication, aims at or has the tendency to outrage the modesty of a female employee, must fall under the general concept of the definition of sexual harassment. .......................................................................
24. Against the growing social menace of sexual harassment of women at the work place, a three Judge Bench of this Court by a rather innovative judicial law making process issued certain guidelines in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, after taking note of the fact that the present civil and penal laws in the country do not adequately provide for specific protection of woman from sexual harassment at places of work and that enactment of such a legislation would take a considerable time. In Vishakas case (supra), a definition of sexual harassment was suggested. Verma, J., (as the former Chief S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 20 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Justice then was), speaking for the three-Judge Bench opined :
2. Definition :
For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as :
(a) physical contact and advances;
(b) a demand or request for sexual favours;
(c) sexually-coloured remarks;
(d) showing pornography;
(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non- verbal conduct of sexual nature.
Where any of these acts is committed in circumstances whereunder the victim of such conduct has a reasonable apprehension that in relation to the victim's employment or work whether she is drawing salary, or honorarium or voluntary, whether in government, public or private enterprise such conduct can be humiliating and may constitute a health and safety problem. It is discriminatory for instance when the woman has reasonable grounds to believe that her objection would disadvantage her in connection with her employment or work including S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 21 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH recruiting or promotion or when it creates a hostile work environment. Adverse consequences might be visited if the victim does not consent to the conduct in question or raises any objection thereto.
25. An analysis of the above definition, shows that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones, whether directly or by implication, particularly when submission to or rejection of such a conduct by the female employee was capable of being used for effecting the employment of the female employee and unreasonably interfering with her work performance and had the effect of creating an intimidating or hostile working environment for her.
26. There is no gainsaying that each incident of sexual harassment, at the place of work, results in violation of the Fundamental Right to Gender Equality and the Right to Life and Liberty the two most precious Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. .................. .................. ..................." S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 22 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
13. In Medha Kotwal Lele supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed thus:
"41. The implementation of the guidelines in Vishaka has to be not only in form but substance and spirit so as to make available safe and secure environment to women at the workplace in every aspect and thereby enabling the working women to work with dignity, decency and due respect. There is still no proper mechanism in place to address the complaints of sexual harassment of the women lawyers in Bar Associations, lady doctors and nurses in the medical clinics and nursing homes, women architects working in the offices of the engineers and architects and so on and so forth."
14. In the judgment of Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241, the Hon'ble Apex Court laid down a set of guidelines and norms with a direction that they are strictly adhered to and shall be binding and enforceable under law till such time vacuum was filled, a legislation is enacted to occupy the field. The Vishaka case was followed in Medha Kotwal S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 23 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Lele and Others vs. Union of India and others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 297, where it was explained that the Internal Complaints Committee as envisaged by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Vishaka judgment, shall be deemed to be inquiry authority for the purpose of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the report of the Internal Complaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report on which action will be taken in accordance with law. POSH Act legislated on 23.04.2013 was notified on 09.05.2013. The Act laid down a comprehensive mechanism for constitution of ICC, local committee and internal committees; manner of conduct of inquiry into a complaint received. The interplay between the Service Rules and POSH Act and Rules thereunder, came up for consideration in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Aureliano Fernandes and State of Goa and others reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 621, decided on 13.05.2023, it was observed that the cardinal principle required to be drawn in mind is that the person accused of misconduct must be informed of the case, must be supplied the evidence in support thereof and be given a reasonable opportunity to present S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 24 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH his version before any adverse decision is taken. It is pertinent to note that the complaint itself becomes suffice, copy of which served on the respondent to respond to the same. As held in the case of Aureliono supra, the Internal Complaints Committee is not bound to strictly follow the step by step procedure as has been stipulated in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. It is observed that the ICC can frame the issues of its own and does not require memorandum of charges from the Department for further inquiry into the compliant, non- framing of the Articles of charge by the Committee cannot be treated as fatal. Such being the legal position, the arguments of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the charges are vague and witnesses were added modifying the charge memorandum, certainly falls to ground.
15. In the present case, it is discernible that the statement of the complainant corroborated by the witnesses PW-2 to PW-5 remains unrefuted. Acquittal in the criminal case/special case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct. Degree of proof which is necessary to order conviction in a criminal case is different S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 25 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH from degree of proof necessary to record commission of delinquency in the departmental proceedings. Similarly the arguments that the witnesses had some personal grudge against the applicant and he being the Accountant has taken some steps to recover the non- entitled LTC amount from PW-2 and PW-3 and his role as inquiry officer for conducting the preliminary inquiry against the complainant, PW-1 and PW-5 for examining of Carpentry file and shifting of PW-4 to Admin Office from Library as per Audit observation, caused the witnesses to adduce false evidence are Ipse dixit statements of the applicant. Evidence of the witnesses cannot be discredited on surmises and conjectures unless discarded in the cross examination. Charges framed against the applicant are not vague or suffer from infirmities for not mentioning the specific date and time, since such harassment was met by the complainant very often on several occasions while the charged officer was functioning as Account and the complainant working as LDC in Accounts Section. In the light of Chaturvedi, supra, in the present case, the findings or conclusion are based on some evidence reached by the S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 26 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH inquiry authority entrusted with the power, accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, and the conclusion receives support therefrom, as such the scope of judicial review by the Tribunal is limited. Strict adherence to Evidence Act are not required to be made applicable in the disciplinary proceedings, instead, they are governed by the principles of natural justice and "preponderance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". As already discussed, the principles of natural justice were duly followed during the inquiry. No procedural lapses are found in the inquiry proceedings.
16. In Rattan Lal Sharma supra, it has been emphasised that in Administrative Law, Rules of natural justice are foundational and fundamental concepts and the law is now well settled that the principles of natural justice are part of the legal and judicial procedures. Bias is alleged against the witnesses in the present case, not against the Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority/Officers of the ICC. It is always easier to make allegations of bias against the witnesses rendering evidence against the accused or vice versa. S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 27 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Corelating the duties of the applicant as an Accountant in the office with the evidences of the witnesses would not discard the truth of the testimony.
17. In Manjeet Singh supra, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while considering the factual aspects that nobody corroborated the complainants' version of sexual harassment, held that the conclusion of ICC is not borne out from the facts and it cannot be sustained. Further more, the right to cross-examine the complaint as envisaged in law was denied to him, which suffers from severe legal infirmity. No such infirmity is found in the present case. The complainant's version has been corroborated by the witnesses PW-2 to PW-5. Ample opportunity was provided to the applicant to cross examine the witnesses which has been availed by the applicant.
18. In Mohd. Sharif supra, the complainant since deceased, who was working as a Head Constable of the Daksiti Guard at P.S.Kakwan District Kanpur, was dismissed, on the challenge made to the said dismissal order as no proper inquiry was held against him S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 28 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH and no reasonable opportunity was given to him and for recovery of arrears of salary, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. On further appeal, setting aside the dismissal order, the matter was remanded back in respect of relief pertaining to salary etc. The State preferred a second appeal and the High Court has confirmed the decree passed by the Appellate Court and dismissed the second appeal. Against which the State of Uttar Pradesh had preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court having regard to the conclusion held by the Hon'ble High Court that the plaintiff was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself at the disciplinary inquiry, observed that it is difficult to accept the contention urged by the State that the view taken by the Trial Court should be accepted. The aforesaid judgment will be of little assistance to the applicant. Similarly the order passed by this Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation and the Additional City Civil and Sessions Court judgment in Spl.C.No.922/2019 as well as the order of the Principal Bench in Satyapal Singh Yadav, would not come to the aid of the applicant.
S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 29 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
19. In Satyapal Singh Yadav supra, the matter was considered in the back drop of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 vis-à-vis departmental proceedings relating to the summary of allegations/charges involving two components (1) the applicant came in a drunken state and (2) he tried to shake hand with the complainant saying hello, followed by an act of misbehavior, more particularly, where the witnesses had turned hostile. The issue involved herein being with respect to the dignity and modesty of the women guaranteed under the constitutional rights, attracts the provisions of the Act, 2013. Such serious and sensitive issue cannot be compared with the provisions of punishment under appeal Rules/IPC. In our considered view, quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority confirmed by the Appellate Authority does not shock the conscience of this Tribunal. The same being reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no scope for interference.
S Sarala Devi CAT Bangalore S Sarala Devi 2026.04.24 16:14:14+ 05'30' 30 OA 360/2024/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH
20. For the reasons discussed herein above, OA lacks merit, accordingly stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
sd.
S Sarala Devi
CAT Bangalore
S Sarala Devi
2026.04.24 16:14:14+
05'30'