Delhi District Court
Rana Afroz Siddiqui vs S. Ramanujan And Ors on 16 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL, PRESIDING OFFICER
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-01, ROUSE AVENUE COURT,
D.D.U. MARG, NEW DELHI.
RCA DJ NO. 121/17
Ms. X
D/o X
R/o X. ..... Appellant
Versus.
1. Mr. S. Ramanujan,
Admin. Head,
The Hindu, Milap Bhawan,
4 th Floor, ITO, New Delhi.
2. Mr. Amit Baruah,
Resident Editor,
The Hindu, Milap Bhawan,
4 th Floor, ITO, New Delhi.
3. Ms. Shalini Arun,
Presiding Officer,
Internal Complaints Committee,
The Hindu, Milap Bhawan,
4 th Floor, ITO, New Delhi.
4. Mr. N. C. Suresh,
National Editor,
Member, Internal Complaints Committee,
The Hindu, Milap Bhawan,
4 th Floor, ITO, New Delhi.
5. Mr. Prabhakar,
Vice-President - Legal,
Member, Internal Complaints Committee,
The Hindu, Milap Bhawan,
RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 1/21
4 th Floor, ITO, New Delhi.
6. Ms. Malini Roberts
Head, Counselling Services,
Member, Internal Complaints Committee,
The Hindu, Milap Bhawan,
4 th Floor, ITO, New Delhi.
7. Ms. Geeta Ramaseshan,
External Member Cum Advocate,
Member, Internal Complaints Committee,
The Hindu, Milap Bhawan,
4 th Floor, ITO, New Delhi.
8. Mr. N. Ram,
Chairman and Publisher
Kasturi & Sons Ltd.
No. 859 & 860, Kasturi Buildings,
Anna Salai, Mount Road,
Chennai-600002.
9. Mr. N. Ravi, Director,
Kasturi & Sons Ltd.
No. 859 & 860, Kasturi Buildings,
Anna Salai, Mount Road,
Chennai-600002.
10. Mr. Mukund Padmanabhan, Editor,
Kasturi & Sons Ltd.
No. 859 & 860, Kasturi Buildings,
Anna Salai, Mount Road,
Chennai-600002. ....Respondents.
Date of Institution : 03.08.2017
Date of case taken by this court first time : 16.03.2023
Date of Arguments : 05.09.2023
Date of Judgment : 16.09.2023
RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 2/21
1. This is an appeal U/s 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 which has been preferred by the appellant against the recommendations of ICC vide report dated 10.04.2017.
2. The girl has not concealed her name in the appeal but keeping in view the sanctity and nature of case and the act involved, this court is refraining from mentioning the name of girl and instead of her name, letter 'X' will be mentioned for complainant.
3. The facts relevant for disposal of present appeal are that appellant/complainant was working as Principal Correspondent/ Chief Sub Editor, in the Delhi Education of Kasturi and Sons Limited (The Hindu Delhi Edition Wing). It is stated that appellant had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the respondent No. 1 and 2 working in Delhi branch of Kasturi and Sons Limited (The Hindu Delhi Edition Wing).
4. It is stated that appellant wrote a detailed complaint dated 09.11.2016, regarding the incident dated 12.05.2015, to respondent No. 3 being the Presiding Officer, ICC, the Hindu.
5. In the brief facts of case, it is averred that on 12.05.2015, at about 05.00 p.m., the appellant was working in the office as usual and all of a sudden, a peon came and told her that she was called in room of respondent No. 2, the then Resident Editor and when she entered the room, she found that respondents No. 1 and 2 and Ms. Suhasini Haider, Strategic and Foreign Affairs Editor and RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 3/21 Mr. Basharat Peer, Roving Editor were already present. It is stated that after her entry in room, it was immediately closed, at the instance of respondent No. 1 and she was surrounded by abovesaid respondents, as if she was a criminal.
6. It is stated that respondent No. 2 started throwing false allegations against the appellant, with a sole criminal intent to victimize her and she was forced not to speak a word and was ordered to write her resignation, by the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is stated that appellant was illegally and forcibly confined in said room, against her will and respondent No. 2 extended threat that she would not be allowed to leave the room without writing her resignation letter stating the words "with immediate effect". It is stated that appellant got a shock of her life as she was being forced to write her resignation and she pleaded that she wanted to speak to her husband and thereafter, took out her mobile for same but respondent No. 1 forcefully snatched her mobile phone from her hand and shouted that she cannot call anyone and it is allowed. It is stated that respondent No. 1 criminally assaulted the appellant and outraged her modesty by his rude and terrifying gestures. It is also stated respondent No. 2 put his finger on his lips to indicate that appellant was not allowed to shout for help and should speak in hushed tones and not to show any reactions to anyone from glass window and she was threatened with dire consequences, if she did not write her resignation and she was mentally and physically tortured by respondents No. 1 and 2.
7. It is further stated that in aforesaid forced and compelling RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 4/21 circumstances, the appellant with trembling hands, had to write her resignation letter and she was so tensed that she could not write the whole resignation letter in the first two attempts but respondent no. 2 was sitting with multiple sheets of A-4 size white paper which he kept on giving to appellant one after the other. It is stated that appellant was permitted to leave the room only after the hand written resignation letter was forcibly obtained from the appellant.
8. It is stated that when appellant had recovered from the shock to some extent, she immediately sent an e-mail to Editor- in-Charge, the Chairman and those present in room on 12.05.2015 and requested to recall her resignation letter which was forcibly obtained. It is stated that in less than an hour, the appellant was mailed by the Vice-President-HR, The Hindu's letter dated 12.05.2015, accepting her coercively written resignation. It is also stated that she had not resigned rather her resignation was obtained under duress after outraging her modesty. It is also stated that a complaint was also made to police station I.P. Estate in this regard but she was made to wait for long time at the instance of management of Hindu and her complaint was received at 12.50 a.m. on 13.05.2015.
9. Some grounds have also been taken in appeal to the effect that ICC had failed to adhere to the Rules and Regulations Manual of "The Hindu" which has to be followed by every ICC constituted under the various directions of Hon'ble Apex Court and management was following the policy of lay off large RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 5/21 number of permanent employees without following the due procedure required under law. It was also stated that ICC has failed to consider the fact that if at all the above mentioned resignation is taken on its face value to be true, appellant soon after incident would have never written a letter to all the Editors those including once in Chennai and New Delhi regarding forceful resignation which was obtained by criminally intimidating and threatening her of dire consequences.
10. It was also stated that appellant was called by respondents without any prior memo/notice served upon her and ICC ought to have made efforts to understand her state of mind, her victimized state when the said illegal and forceful resignation was obtained by respondents. It was also stated that all the witnesses examined by the ICC while concluding its report were interested witnesses and not independent witnessed and conclusion given by the ICC is biased and bad in law. It was also stated that principles of natural justice were not followed as the appellant was neither informed about the procedure which is to be followed for conducting the inquiry nor was supplied with any documents pertaining to inquiry. Hence, the present appeal was filed by appellant seeking relief as prayed in prayer clause of appeal.
11. Reply to appeal was filed by respondent No. 1 stating that present appeal is barred by limitation and ICC passed its report on 10.04.2017 while present appeal was filed on 03.08.2017 which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days. It was also stated that appellant has not approached the RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 6/21 court with clean hands and suppressed the material documents from this court with malafide intentions.
12. It was stated that allegations made by appellant are totally false and rather, the issue was of serious breach of ethics on the part of appellant for which she was called on 12.05.2015 and when she was asked in meeting as to whether she was an Advisor to La Communique which is owned by her husband to which she denied and even told that she would resign if it was found true and after that respondent No. 2 Mr. Amit Baruah immediately produced a copy of screen shot of La Communique showing that she was an advisor and her name was mentioned in the last para of printout. It is stated that on seeing the same, appellant said that she did not know how the company has put this on their website and she also made some phone calls. It is stated that Mr. Baruah pointed out that this is against journalist ethics and was not acceptable at any cost and thus appellant gave her resignation and left the cabin and during entire episode, respondent No. 1 did not say anything and also not get up from his seat. It is stated that appellant on her own after realising that she was at her fault resigned out of her own wish and choice. It was also stated that total vague allegations have been made by appellant without specifying as to which rules and regulations have not been followed by ICC and no such objection was ever raised by appellant before ICC. It is also stated that ICC after conducting the entire proceedings correctly held that complaint made by appellant was false and there was no sexual harassment as RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 7/21 alleged. The other contents of appeal were denied and it was prayed that present appeal may be dismissed and observations and recommendations of IC may be upheld by the Tribunal.
13. Separate reply was filed by respondent no. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to appeal of appellant to the effect that present appeal is barred by limitation and ICC passed its report on 10.04.2017 while present appeal was filed on 03.08.2017 which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days. It was stated that appellant has not approached the court with clean hands and suppressed material documents from court with malafide intentions.
14. It was stated that committee had conducted fair enquiry by following the rules and procedure in strict adherence and it had acted in compliance with law and has held that there was no act of sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour towards the appellant. It was stated that only reason for adding and making the answering respondents personally as party to the appeal is that they had given a report not favouring the appellant. It was also stated that report of committee is capable of being tested in exercise of power of judicial review under the provisions of POSH Act and when the remedy of appeal is invoked, the committee is not required to step into arena of conflict for defending its own report by giving reason or justification for report as party in the appeal.
15. It was also stated that committee has conducted a fair and neutral enquiry into the said complaint in accordance with principles of natural justice and report of findings has been duly RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 8/21 submitted to employer in the prescribed manner and therefore, the present appeal holds no value and is liable to be dismissed against the answering respondents. It was also stated that committee gave full opportunity to the appellant and provided all documents to her and followed the procedure prescribed for the enquiry and there is no infirmity in the same. The other paras of appeal were denied and it was prayed that present appeal may be dismissed with exemplary costs.
16. Respondents No. 2 and 8 to 10 have filed separate reply to the appeal stating that present appeal is gross abuse and misuse of law as there was no unwelcome sexually determined behaviour on the part of respondent No. 1 and 2 towards appellant which comes within the ambit of definition of "Sexual Harassment" as defined in Section 2(n) of The POSH Act, 2013. It was stated that answering respondents are not necessary parties to the appeal and she voluntarily submitted her resignation from the services on her own will and volition and allegations of forceful resignation obtained with criminal, physical assault by outraging the appellant's modesty are false and misleading.
17. It was further stated that there is no infirmity or illegality in the findings of ICC as ICC has fairly examined the complaint made by appellant through proper enquiry by applying judicious mind and ICC has minutely scrutinized and inquired into the allegations of sexual harassment in accordance with Act. It was also stated that ICC had conducted fair and impartial inquiry in rational manner in accordance with principles of natural justice RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 9/21 and the view taken by ICC was the most possible and plausible view on the basis of evidence on record and conclusion of committee does not warrant any interference. It was also stated that there was no allegation of sexual harassment in the legal notice dated 09.06.2015 and false allegation came as an afterthought only for the first time in the e-mail dated 11.11.2015 sent by appellant i.e. six months after the alleged incident. It was also stated that ICC in its findings has held that there was neither any sexual harassment on the part of respondent nor any overt act of behaviour outraging the modesty of appellant. The remaining averments made in appeal were denied and it was prayed that appeal may be dismissed with cost being devoid of any merits.
18. Common rejoinder was filed on behalf of appellant to the replies of respondent No. 1 to 10 wherein contents of appeal were reiterated and those of replies were denied.
19. I have gone through the records and the report of ICC and have heard the arguments as advanced by parties. My findings otherwise are given below:-
20. It is pertinent to mention here that sexual harassment is the expression of unhealthy human relationship. It is not just the violation of dignity, right to social security and right to equality guaranteed to human beings in every social system but it is also a violation of right to life and peaceful existence guaranteed by law. It is a universal problem and its gravity is felt by all concerned around the world. Nations have gone for various legal approaches to curb harassment issues. With the new law in India RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 10/21 relating to safety of women in work place with all stringent provisions for awareness and preventive measures, every woman at the place of work and study, who fall within the jurisdiction of educational institution, including its academic, non-academic staff and students should be protected from sexual harassment, intimidation and exploitation while they are associated with the campus/organization.
21. It has to be kept in mind that the interference of the courts should be limited to ensuring that there are no procedural irregularities or violations of principles of natural justice and once the ICC has adequately and appropriately addressed a complaint of sexual harassment, it is not open to the courts to look into the merits of the matter.
22. It is important to take into consideration that ICC is a fact finding body which gives recommendations on allegations of sexual harassment at work places. The very object of the statute states of providing a speedy and hassle free remedy to the victims which is devoid of procedural complexities and rigours of courts and tribunals. The Act of 2013 states that the ICC is not bound by technical procedures but is only to ensure natural justice to parties and thus ICC is a free to devise its procedure depending on peculiar circumstances of the case before it while ensuring natural justice. Non-applicability of rules of evidence imply that technicalities of mode of proof and standard of proof do not apply to ICC. So the ICC is to come to conclusions based on holistic view of materials before it by weighing probabilities of a RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 11/21 case. Further application of natural justice depends from case to case and protection of witnesses is a valid consideration for excluding cross-examination of witnesses particularly when they refuse to depose due to fear of person answering the charge.
23. First of all this Tribunal would like to peruse and reproduce the findings and observations made by ICC in its report which is to the following effect:-
"The committee is giving its conclusion, based on scrutiny of documents and submissions made by the complainant, respondent, witnesses after thorough analysis of the alleged incident dated May 12, 2015 and holds on issue No. 1 that the respondent did not indulge in any act of sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour and the complainant has falsely made out a case against him as an afterthought. Since, the issue No. 1 has indicated that there was no sexual harassment on the part of respondent towards the complainant, the committee on issue No. 2 holds that there was no overt act or behaviour outraging the modesty of the complainant.
The committee deprecates the conduct of the complainant in giving a false complaint that has caused a hostile working environment in the office besides creating a lot of stress to the respondent.
The committee places the report before the RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 12/21 Employer for appropriate action."
24. At the very outset, it is observed that ICC passed its detailed report on 10.04.2017, while present appeal has been filed only on 03.08.2017 which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days. Rather, as per record available before this Tribunal, no application for condonation of delay has been filed accompanied with appeal. Still this court is not going into question of limitation and is disposing of the present appeal on merits.
25. It is important to note here that appellant has alleged incident as detailed in appeal which is dated 12.05.2015 and she averred that she was working in the office as usual and all of a sudden, a peon came and told her that she was called in the room of respondent No. 2, the then Resident Editor and when appellant entered the room, she found that respondents No. 1 and 2 and Ms. Suhasini Haider, Strategic and Foreign Affairs Editor and Mr. Basharat Peer, Roving Editor were already present. She also alleged that after her entry in room, it was immediately closed, at the instance of respondent No. 1 and she was surrounded by above mentioned respondents, as if she was a criminal.
26. It is further the case of appellant that respondent No. 2 started throwing false allegations against the appellant, with a sole criminal intent to victimize her and she was forced not to speak a word and was ordered to write her resignation, by the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is alleged that appellant was illegally and forcibly confined in said room, against her will and RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 13/21 respondent No. 2 extended threat that she would not be allowed to leave the room without writing her resignation letter stating the words "with immediate effect". It is alleged that appellant got a shock of her life as she was being forced to write her resignation and she pleaded that she wanted to speak to her husband and thereafter, took out her mobile for same but respondent No. 1 forcefully snatched her mobile phone from her hand and shouted that she cannot call anyone and it is allowed. It is further alleged by appellant that respondent No. 1 criminally assaulted the appellant and outraged her modesty by his rude and terrifying gestures and respondent No. 2 put his finger on his lips to indicate that appellant was not allowed to shout for help and should speak in hushed tones and not to show any reactions to anyone from the glass window and she was threatened with dire consequences, if she did not write her resignation and she was mentally and physically tortured by respondents No. 1 and 2.
27. It is observed that first communication of the appellant after the alleged incident was an e-mail of the same date i.e. 12.05.2015 to the respondent No. 9, however, bare perusal of same shows that there is no allegation of any sexual harassment.
28. It is not an out of place to mention here that legal notice dated 09.06.2015 was also got issued by appellant upon respondents through her advocate and copy of same is available on record, perusal of which shows that though there were allegations of forcefully obtaining resignation letter but there was no allegation of sexual harassment in the legal notice dated RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 14/21 09.06.2015 and it is observed that false allegation have come as an afterthought only for the first time in the e-mail dated 11.11.2015 sent by appellant i.e. six months after the alleged incident. In this regard, Section 9 the Act becomes relevant which states that complaint of sexual harassment can be made within a period of 3 months from the date of incident and the present complaint was filed beyond the prescribed period.
29. One police complaint was also filed by appellant and copy of said complaint has been placed on record but surprisingly same is dated 12.05.2013 and alleged incident is dated 12.05.2015 and receiving/acknowledgement of same shows the date as 13.05.2014 at 12.50 a.m. Though same is stated to be typographical error. Even otherwise, the perusal of said complaint to police also does not reflect any sexual harassment of any nature at the end of respondents.
30. Further there is no denial of the fact that website of the company Le Communique is a company of husband of appellant and said website mentioned the name of appellant as an Advisor. The argument of respondents have force that there was conflict of interest situation and when appellant was confronted with same on 12.05.2015, she resigned on her own.
31. It is further important to note here that IC has examined several witnesses while conducting inquiry and perusal of report shows that Ms. Suhasini Haider has appeared before ICC and she is one of the material witness to the incident as she was present in said room during the alleged incident. During her examination, RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 15/21 she has deposed that four of them wanted to meet the complainant as a team and tell her about the breach of ethics in being an Advisor to Le Communique but complainant denied the same and told that if they can prove what they were saying then she wold resign. She further deposed that complainant left the room several times and made the calls. Ms. Haider further deposed that she did not see any harassment and rather stated that it is offensive to her if she would sit quietly and watch anyone let alone a woman being harassed in her presence. She also deposed that respondent No. 1 did not behave in any inappropriate manner and did not say anything during the entire meeting.
32. Respondent No. 2 herein Sh. Amit Baruah deposed before ICC that a serious breach of ethics on the part of complainant was brought to his knowledge and as this was a sensitive issue, he decided to call the complainant to his room in the presence of others. He has also deposed on the same lines as of Ms. Suhasini Haider. Mr. Baruah also deposed that he did not touch the complainant in any manner and he was shocked at such false allegations made against the respondent.
33. One witness Ms. Radhika Verma was also examined before ICC in support of complainant who is stated to be friend of complainant. The perusal of her deposition shows that complainant was off the radar for a month and did not tell anyone about what had happened. She further deposed that she did not know what had actually happened on 12.05.2015 except from what the complainant told her. So her deposition is of no help to RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 16/21 the case of complainant being hearsay and rather, she was not present at the time of incident.
34. From above discussion, it is clear that IC has examined all the persons who were witnesses to the incidents as alleged by appellant and almost all the witnesses have deposed on similar lines and gist of their deposition is that there was no sexual harassment at the end of respondents No. 1 and 2. So it is ambit clear that IC has given its findings considering all parameters and deposition of witnesses appeared before it. It is settled law that all physical contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact or advances which are in the nature of an unwelcome sexually determined behaviour would amount to sexual harassment.
35. Though as per complaint of complainant, she has alleged some incidents of harassment but examination of said allegations clearly reveals that none of these incidents constitute sexual harassment as defined in the Act. It is further observed that ICC has followed the principles of natural justice while arriving at the findings in relation to the complaint made by the appellant. It is also observed that findings of ICC are in the line with statement of all the parties and in accordance with provisions of Rules as well as the Acts and IC rightly observed that incidents as alleged by the appellant are not within the scope of sexual harassment under the Act. It is also observed that there was no finding of sexually inappropriate behaviour on the part of respondents No. 1 and 2 after thorough inquiry by ICC.RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 17/21
36. Further reliance is placed upon judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in case titled as K. P. Anil Rajagopal Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., WP (C) No. 13811 of 2016 (B) wherein following findings were given:-
"13. In the reference order, the learned Single Judge proceeded on the basis that sexual harassment is to be construed in the light of the provision contained in S.2(n) read with Section 3 of the 2013 Act as well as the provisions of Regulation 2(k) of the University Grants Commission (prevention, prohibition and rederessal of sexual harassment of women employees and students in higher educational institutions) Regulations, 2015 ('UGC Regulations, 2015' for short). Even in the UGC regulations, 'sexual harassment' has been given a meaning. Under the UGC Regulations, 2015, 'sexual harassment' has been defined under clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2(k). Clause (i) itself refers to "an unwanted conduct with sexual undertones" and then sub clauses
(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) are mentioned, which are almost similar to clauses (i) to (v) of Section 2(n) of the 2013 Act. Sub clause (2) of S.2(k) indicates "any one (or more than one or all) of the circumstances if it occurs or is present in relation or connected with any behaviour that has explicit or implicit sexual undertones and it is further specified under sub-clauses (a) to (e). Therefore, even going by the UGC Regulations, sexual harassment has to occur based on "an unwanted conduct with sexual RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 18/21 undertone" or WP(C) Nos.9219 & 10370/2020 "in relation or connected with any behaviour that has explicit or implicit" "sexual undertones". Therefore, the very concept of sexual harassment in a workplace against a woman should start from an express or implied sexual advance, sexual undertone or unwelcome behaviour which has a sexual tone behind it without which provisions of Act 2013 will not apply. In Anil Rajagopal (supra) also, this Court had while interpreting 2013 Act had arrived at the very same finding.
14. In the result, we do not think that Anil Rajagopal (supra) requires any reconsideration. We would only clarify that any form of sexual approach or behaviour that is unwelcome will come under the definition of 'sexual harassment' and it is not confined to any of the sub clauses mentioned in Section 2(n), which of course will depend upon the materials placed on record and on a case to case basis. But it is made clear that in order to take action under the 2013 Act, the acts complained of should come within the purview of S.2(n) and Section 3 of the Act or any other form of sexual treatment or sexual behaviour on the part of the respondent" .
37. Reliance is placed upon judgement passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as Ajay Tiwari Vs. University of Deli & Ors in WP (C) No. 1288/2012 wherein in para No. 65, it was observed that "An Act is "welcome" when there is an active element of conscious and willing RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 19/21 acquiescence, by the person, to the doing of the act. Contrariwise, an act is "unwelcome", when the person, on whom the act is perpetrated, does not invite the doing thereof, or "welcome" the act. Examination of the question of whether an act, performed by one person or another, is "welcome", or "unwelcome", would necessarily involve an element of psychoanalysis of the purported victim. "
38. The law settled in above referred judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Rather in the present case, there is no such act of welcome nature.
39. It is observed that the Act was made for the welfare of society and for creating a safe and comfortable work environment for women and the main objectives of the POSH Act are to ensure that women's right to equality, life and liberty is not violated or compromised and to ensure that every woman is provided a safe working environment, insulated from any act of sexual harassment, of any form but this Tribunal observed that this is blatant example of misuse of said Act by appellant and such practices have to be curbed because if the Act is misused, it will give a bad signal. Rather, respondents No. 1 and 2 could have filed the defamation suit against appellant for misusing of the Act herein and for tarnishing their image. Allegations of sexual harassment can have a devastating impact on a man's life, both personally and professionally. The mere accusation of sexual harassment can be enough to ruin a man's reputation, even if he is ultimately cleared of all charges. In the workplace, RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 20/21 allegation of sexual harassment can lead to a number of negative consequences, not only to penal consequences by the employer but also can have a significant impact on his personal life. The stigma of sexual harassment affects the reputation of a man among his friends and family. So misuse of Act has to be stopped.
40. Thus on all counts and after going through the record and other documents especially the report of ICC, this Tribunal observes that ICC has given its findings as per rules and material available before ICC and it has rightly concluded the inquiry thereby dealing the testimony of witnesses and other material available on record and this Tribunal does not find any illegality and infirmity in the observations made by ICC and there is no error in findings given by ICC and no interference is required in the observations of IC.
41. Accordingly, in these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed in above terms, being without any merits, leaving the complainant to take recourse as per law.
42. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Tribunal on this 16.09.2023 (AJAY GOEL) POIT-I/Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi RCA No. 121/17 Pages No. 21/21