Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Dated This Friday vs The Union Of India Through on 11 May, 2012
1 O.A. No. 753/2011 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BOMBAY BENCH, MUMBAI. ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.: 753 of 2011 Dated this Friday, the 11th day of May, 2012. CORAM : Hon'ble Smt. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J). Shri Prakash F. Malik, Development Officer (PostalLife Insurance) GokulBuilding, Alto Porvorium, Bardez, Goa 403 521. ... Applicant (By Advocate Ms. Priyanka M.) VERSUS 1. The Union of India through the Director (Staff), Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi 110 016. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, Department of Posts, Mumbai 400 001. 3. The Assistant Director of Postal Services, Goa Region, Panaji 403 001, Goa. 4. The Sr. Supterintendent of Post Offices, Goa Division, Mapusa 403 507. 5. The Assistant Postmaster General (Staff), Department of Posts, Office of Post Master General Maharashtra Region, Mumbai 400 001. ... Respondents (By Advocate Shri Vinod B. Joshi) 2 O.A. No. 753/2011 O R D E R (ORAL) Per : Smt. Chameli Majumdar, Member (J)
This is the second round of litigation. Initially the applicant, who was working as Development Officer (Postal Life Insurance) in Goa on deputation, challenged the order of transfer dated 15.07.2011 whereby he was transferred and posted as Postal Assistant, Regional Office, Pune, by O.A. No. 562/2011. The said O.A. was disposed of by directing the Respondent No. 2, being the Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, to dispose of the two representations of the applicant dated 19.07.2011 and 08.04.2011 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Pursuant to the said order of this Tribunal, the Respondent No. 2 issued the order dated 05.10.2011. In the instant application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 05.10.2011 along with the order of transfer as well as the order dated 15.07.2011 relieving the applicant from Goa.
2. The grounds which have been taken by the applicant in this O.A., inter alia, are as follows :
2.1 The respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 05.10.2011 in complete disregard to the spirit of the Tribunal's order dated 25.08.2011. 2.2 There is complete non application of mind on 3 O.A. No. 753/2011 behalf of Respondent No. 2 before disposing of the representation of the applicant by a cryptic order.
At the same time he has tried to shrug of his responsibility by stating that he is not the competent authority.
2.3 In spite of the mandatory policy and guidelines of protecting Government servant from premature and mid term transfer to another station when all his three daughters are in final years of their respective studies and there being no any emergent unavoidable public interest, the applicant has been transferred.
2.4 There are at least 3 regular and 11 on the basis of deputation vacancies in the office of Postmaster General, Goa Region which are lying vacant. The applicant being an employee of Regional Office, Panaji (Goa) could very well be adjusted there instead of transferring to far off Pune Region as has been observed by this Tribunal in its order dated 25.08.2011.
2.5 Because of his ill health, pending education courses of his three daughters and 80 years old mother and the fact that the transfer orders are abrupt and mid term, the applicant is not in a position to join at Pune immediately.
3. The respondents filed their reply. The 4 O.A. No. 753/2011 contention of the respondents are, inter alia, as follows :
3.1 The transfer order of the applicant from Goa Region to Pune Region were issued by the office of the Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, who is the competent authority to issue the transfer orders of Circle cadre officials and there is nothing irregular in the impugned transfer order. If the conduct of the official is not upto the mark and is in violation of the Conduct Rules, his good work will tarnish his reputation and image and particularly in a case of sexual harassment, this becomes more serious. The applicant belongs to Circle transferable cadre and is liable to transfer anywhere in the Circle. Goa being a very small city, it was necessary to keep the applicant away from the lady official, complainant to prevent repetition of such cases. The transfer of the applicant has been ordered under special circumstances and the benefits available under various judgments cannot be extended to him keeping in view the special circumstances involving a lady official. Therefore, it is not advisable as per the instructions in sexual harassment case to post the applicant in the office where the complainant is working. The applicant cannot be posted against the vacancies in Goa 5 O.A. No. 753/2011 Division which is a Divisional cadre. The transfer order was issued for administrative reasons. The respondents further contended that felicitation of a official for his business performance does not justify his misconduct. If strong disciplinary action is not taken against the applicant, the act of felicitation itself would be counter-productive and would send wrong signals to other staff. It is also contended that the misconduct and misbehaviour of the applicant is the main reason for his transfer.
Therefore, his retention in Goa is not at all desired. He should join his new place of posting as ordered. The competent authority was kind enough to post him to the neighboring Region, i.e., Pune Region, instead of posting him to a far off Regional Offices like Aurangabad or Nagpur.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder categorically stating that he has been working in the office of Respondent No. 4 under his jurisdiction and there is a Sexual Harassment Committee at Divisional level in the office of Respondent No. 4 itself. It is not understood why the Respondent No. 4 did not inquire into the case through this sexual harassment committee at Divisional level. Hence, the case of sexual harassment and misconduct is totally baseless and has been framed. Respondents are trying to ruin 6 O.A. No. 753/2011 the career of 55 years old employee who has put in 34 years of unblemished service, who is having three daughters taking higher education in Goa, wife and 80 years old mother with bed sickness. This proves the malafide intentions on the part of the respondents.
5. In the additional affidavit in reply, the respondents stressed upon that the conduct of the official was not up to the mark and was in violation of the Conduct Rules. The applicant's behaviour and direct involvement in defaming the character and reputation of a lady official by circulating a letter among the fellow coloured remarks, necessitated the transfer.
employees containing which is a serious sexually offence,
6. The records have been produced by the respondents. I have gone through the records. find that the complaint was filed by one Mrs. Rita Pinto IP (Planning.), Office of the Postmaster General, Goa Region, Panaji, addressed to Ms. Veena Srinivas, Chairman, Internal/Local Complaint Committee, Office of Postmaster General, Goa Region, Panaji. The complaint letter is set out herein below:
The contents of the above cited subject anonymous complaint has the propensity to seriously malign me and adversely affect my character. The said complaint has been circulated by Shri Prakash Malik, DO 7 O.A. No. 753/2011 (PLI), Department of Posts to the staff members of the Panaji Head Post Office.
The said Shri Malik has even posted the complaint to the staff members of the Regional Office, Smt. Pranita, who in turn has discussed the same with the other staff members.
Shri Malik, himself has mentioned that he has posted the complaint to Pranita. The following staff members of Regional Office-Goa, are aware of the said fact (1) Ms. Libby Fernandes (2) Ms. Smita Naik, (3) Ms. Shaila Peru (4) Ms. Pranita and (5) Ms. Milred (RPLI Section). The above conduct of Shri Malik has not only interfered with my work, but has created an intimidating/offensive & hostile work environment, thereby subjecting me to a form of 'sexual harassment'. It has also caused me extreme mental pain, anguish, embarrassment and emotional trauma.
I sincerely appeal and pray that a thorough inquiry be conducted under clause 11 of The Protection of Women against sexual harassment at Work Place Bill, 2010.
The conduct of Shri Malik has defamed my name and as such I request to provide assistance to file a complaint in relation to the offence, Defamation', under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. I also request to grant me necessary leave during the pendency of the inquiry.
I once again request for a fair and impartial enquiry and to take necessary action against the official.
7. In the complaint itself the complainant requested for a fair and impartial enquiry and to take necessary action against the official. It also appears from the record that the applicant himself 8 O.A. No. 753/2011 requested the Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra and Goa State, Mumbai, to conduct a departmental enquiry regarding the complaint of Mrs. Rita Pinto.
The extract from the said request is set out herein below :
Sir, I therefore, humbly request your kind honour, to conduct a Departmental inquiry in to the complaint made against me by Mrs. Rita Pinto. And, if at all I am found guilty, I am ready to accept the Departmental consequences. Unless and until the Departmental Inquiry is conducted, I am not relieved from C.I.D. Eqniry.
Sir, I also request your kind honour that, till the Departmental Inquiry is completed, the transfer order issued by your honour may kindly be held in abeyance. The documents/letters related to the case are enclosed for your kind perusal and sympathetic consideration. In the said letter, the applicant enclosed the following documents :
1. Notice received from C.I.D. (Crime Branch) Dona Paula (Goa).
2. Permission asked from SSPO Goa Divn for attending CID Inquiry.
3. Permission granted by SSPOs Goa Divn to attend CID Inquiry.
4. Letter addressed to C.I.D. for issue of Copy of my statement recorded by PI C.I.D. a/w original complaint on me.
5. Letter from CID (Crime Branch) to collect the copy of my statement along with original complaint.
6. Original complaint issued C.I.D. Branch wherein there is no mention of my name.
7. Copy of my statement recorded by PI C.I.D. issued to me.
8. Letter addressed to PI C.I.D. requesting 9 O.A. No. 753/2011 to intimate reasons on what ground they have made me the culprit in the case even though there is no mention of my name in the case.
9. True copy of Mrs. Rita Pinto's statement exposing my name.
10. Letter addressed to Hon'ble DPS Goa containing appeal.
11. Letter of Hon'ble DPS Goa in reply to my appeal received through SSPOs Goa Divn.
8. By letter dated 30.11.2010 the applicant has also requested to permit him to register a defamation case against Mrs. Rita Pinto, IP (Plg.) for giving false information before C.I.D., Dona Paula.
9. It appears from record that a Complaint Committee vide order bearing No. GR/Staff-I/Complaint Committee/RO/2010 dated 09.07.2010 was constituted nominating the following officers for constituting Complaint Committee at regional level for prevention of sexual harassment to women at workplace. 1. Chairperson :
Ms. Veena R. Srinivas, Director Postal Services, Goa Region, Panaji 403 001.
2. Lady Member : Ms. Rita V. Pinto IP (Plg) O/o. The Postmaster General, Goa Region, Panaji 403 001.
3. Male Member : Shri M.S. Chopade, Asstt. Director Postal Services, O/o. The Postmaster General, Goa Region, Panaji 403 001.
10. It appears that in the said Committee the complainant herself is the only lady member. The Chairman of the Complaint Committee in her letter 10 O.A. No. 753/2011 addressed to Ms. B. P. Sridevi, Director (Staff), Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Posts, Dak Bhavan, New Delhi, has stated that she kept the male member out of enquiry since she considered it prudent not to involve a male member of the Committee to enquire into the complaint. However, she had recorded the statements of two officials working at R.O., Goa, on 31.05.2011 and submitted the file confidentially to the then Postmaster General, Shri A.K. Joshi. The Postmaster General, in turn, addressed a letter to the Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, by name confidentially recommending the transfer of Shri P.F. Malik out of Goa Region clearly considering it essential for curbing the practice of circulating letters defaming women employees.
11. I have gone through the letter written by the Postmaster General, Goa Region, to the Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra and Goa region. The contents of the said letter is as follows :
On the basis of this complaint, PI, CID Crime Dona Paula, Panaji, requested Shri P.F. Malik, DO PLI of Regional Office, Goa to remain present at the police station. Shri P.F. Malik, remained present on 26.08.2010 in connection with the inquiry.
After attending inquiry, Shri Malik requested for copy of complaint. PI CID Crime requested Shri Malik to attend office of PI CID Crime on 29.10.2010 to collect the same.
11 O.A. No. 753/2011It is pertinent to note that this pseudonymous complaint was addressed to departmental officers, i.e., Secretary Posts, DDG (Vig.) CVO, O/o. CPMG. Copy of the complaint was obtained by Shri Prakash Malik from PI CID Crime. This office has not received any communication from CVO O/o CPMG, DDG (V) or Secretary. Therefore, there are ample reasons to believe that they might not have been posted.
Subsequently this complaint was put into wide circulation, forcing Mrs. Rita Pinto to approach office of PMG on 26.11.2010 and 31.01.2011 for taking suitable action against those who are responsible. In this statements of Ms. Mildred Fernandes, PA RPLI and Ms. Libby Fernandes, PA RO, were obtained personally by me and by DPS, which are self explanatory. Both the officials confirmed the involvement of Shri P.F. Malik, DO PLI in circulation of pseudonymous complaint.
I find that it is only Shri P.F. Malik who obtained copy of pseudonymous complaint from PI CID Crime. Though the said complaint is shown addressed to many others, it is not possible to confirm whether this pseudonymous complaint is really addressed to all those by so called complainant. Even if it is believed that complaint is addressed to others, the other organization or persons may not be interested to circulate the same among the officials of the Department.
Therefore, the only surmise is that a departmental official would have done the circulation. The fact is that Shri Malik only obtained copy of complaint and hence preponderance of probability is that he only would have done this. This is confirmed by corroborative evidence of Ms. Mildred Fernandes and Ms. Libby Fernandes, who confirms involvement of Shri P.F. Malik. No more inquiry is required in light of the fact that this is a case in which dignity of women Inspector is at stake.
In view of this, I strongly recommend the transfer of Shri P.F. Malik out of Goa Region. This is essential to curb practise of engineering complaint, obtaining copy and circulating to defame woman employees. Shri P.F. Malik is circle cadre official and 12 O.A. No. 753/2011 posted as OA RO Panaji and now on deputation to PLI as DO PLI. This is permissible under rules and has been reiterated vide Directorate communication No. F.No. 13737/ 20011-SPB-II dated 25.05.2011.
12. After going through the records, I have not come across any statement of the applicant taken by the departmental committee. It does not appear that any notice was served on him to appear before the said Complaint Committee. I find that statements both of the complainant as well as of the applicant were recorded before the CID. In her statement before CID, the complainant suspected two persons, one of them was the applicant. It does not appear that CID Police had advanced further enquiry in this matter.
13. Rule 3 (c) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules says about Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of working women. Rule 3 (c) is set out herein below :
3-C Prohibition of sexual harassment of working women (1) No Government servant shall indulge in any act of sexual harassment of any woman at her work place.
(2) Every Government servant who is in-
charge of a work place shall take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment to any woman at such work place.
EXPLANATION For the purpose of this rule, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour, whether directly or otherwise, as
(a) Physical contact and advances;
(b) demand or request for sexual favours;
13 O.A. No. 753/2011(c) sexually coloured remarks;
(d) showing any pornography; or
(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
14. Proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) rules says :
Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of Rule 3-C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed to be the Inquiring Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules.
15. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the authority to follow the relevant rules provided both in the Conduct Rules as well as CCS (CCA) Rules for the purpose of enquiring into the complaint regarding sexual harassment. Suspicion never takes place of proof. In the instant case, without giving any opportunity to the applicant, the concerned authority had come to a decision that the applicant engineered a complaint, obtained the copy and circulated to defame woman employee on the basis of the statements of two co-employees, although the applicant was not given the opportunity for examination or cross-
examination of the authors of the said statements.
Copies of the statements were also not handed over to 14 O.A. No. 753/2011 the applicant. Admittedly, both, the applicant being the alleged perpetrator of the harassment and the complainant made appeal to the respondents to conduct a proper enquiry into the matter to arrive at a conclusion regarding the guilt of the concerned official. In the reply and additional reply, the respondents have repeatedly mentioned regarding the misconduct of the applicant. The respondents have pleaded in the reply that under the special circumstances this transfer order was issued. Although the transfer order itself does not mention about any stigma and appears to be innocuous but from the materials available from records placed before the court it is clear that instant transfer order has been issued on the basis of the decision by the Secretary (Posts) that the applicant be transferred immediately based on the report of the PMG. The said letter is set out herein below :
B.P. SRIDEVI DIRECTOR (STAFF) D.O.No.15-7/2010-SPG Date : 12.07.2011 Dear Sir, This is with reference to complaint of sexual harassment against Shri Prakash Malik made by Smt. Rita Pinto, Inspector, O/o. PMG Goa. It is understood that PMG Goa Region had recommended that Shri Prakash Malik who is working as D.O. In the O/o. PMG Goa Region be transferred out of the region so that practice of circulating letters defaming the women employees may be curbed.15 O.A. No. 753/2011
It is understood that O/o. CPMG had asked the Postmaster General, Goa, to keep a confidential watch on the activities of Shri Malik.
It has been decided by the Secretary (Posts) that the official, Shri Prakash Malik, be transferred out of Goa Region immediately based on the report of the PMG.
A confirmation in this regard may be sent immediately. Thanking you, Yours Sincerely, sd/ (B.P. Sridevi) Shri Faiz Ur Rehman, CPMG, Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai.
16. In the earlier O.A., this Tribunal directed the respondent no. 2 to consider representations dated 19.07.2011 and 04.08.2011 sympathetically and pass a reasoned order. The order of the respondent no. 2 dated 05.10.2011, which is impugned in this O.A., is not at all a speaking or reasoned order. The Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle, being the Respondent No. 2, made an attempt to shrug off his responsibility by holding that he was not the competent authority since the order was issued as per the decision taken by the Secretary (Posts) so no action could be taken at Circle level to cancel the order. Hence, the representations addressed to him was rejected. He further went ahead by saying that the applicant was at liberty to prefer his 16 O.A. No. 753/2011 representation to the appropriate authority who has taken the decision to transfer him out of Goa region. This order is impugned in the present O.A. I find that in the reply the respondents categorically contended that the Respondent No. 2 is the competent authority. In view of the fact that Respondent No. 2 was directed by this Tribunal to consider the representations so it was not open to him not to consider the representations on merit. The order does not reflect any consideration of the representations of the applicant. He has not mentioned anything regarding the decision of the Secretary which was also endorsed to him in respect of the transfer of the applicant out of Goa region. It simply stated that the applicant was working on an extended tenure of DO PLI attached to Goa Division, there was no alternative but to revert him to PA cadre and transferred and posted as PA, RO Pune. The order impugned is not sustainable at all.
17. The applicant has pleaded, inter alia, that this reversion was punitive and the authority should not have reverted him from the deputation post of PLI to PA in view of his excellent and outstanding performance for last ten years.
18. After going through the records, I find that this is not a case of reversion by way of punishment.
17 O.A. No. 753/2011The applicant was substantively posted in the post of P.A. and he was working on deputation for more than ten years as PLI. By the said transfer/reversion he did not suffer any financial loss, therefore, the reversion does not affect him prejudicially, hence, not a punishment reversion in that respect.
Reversion simply signifies that he is returned back to his substantive post over which he has been holding lien. He was on extension in the deputation post. The applicant also in his representation requested to post him in the vacant post of Postal Assistant in Panaji, Goa R.O.
19. I am inclined to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Janardhan Debnath reported in 2004 (4)SCC 245 wherein it has been held that :
for the purpose of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of a employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. It has been further held in the said judgment that the manner, nature and extent of exercise to be undertaken by Courts/Tribunal in a case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma or constitutes one by way of punishment would also very much depend upon the consequences flowing from the order and as to whether it adversely affected any service condition, status, service prospects 18 O.A. No. 753/2011 financially and same yardstick, norms or standards cannot be applied to all category of cases. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visits the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain quality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration.
20. In the case of Janardhan Debnath (supra), the complaint was regarding misbehavior with the Director, Postal Service, a Sr. Lady Officer. She was confined and dragged from one room to another and this was done with a view to withdraw the charge sheet against the Deputy Postmaster. She was abused with filthy language and was physically manhandled. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that such allegations are of serious nature and the conduct attributed was certainly unbecoming. Whether there was any misbehavior was a question which could be gone into in a departmental proceedings. In the instant case, the complaint was of committing sexual harassment by way of circulation of a defamatory letter full of sexually coloured remarks. The authority came to the conclusion about the involvement of the applicant admittedly on the basis of surmise. Only statements of two employees were 19 O.A. No. 753/2011 taken. The applicant did not get the opportunity to put forward his defence. The nature of allegations of misbehaviour in the case of Union of India Vs. Janardhan Debnath (supra) being dragging a superior officer from one room to another, abusing in filthy language, physically manhandling could be enquired and ascertained for prima facie satisfaction from the employees present in the situation. However, even then the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that the same could be gone into by way of a departmental proceedings. But for the purpose of effecting a transfer, the question of holding an enquiry where there was misbehavior or conduct unbecoming of an employee was unnecessary. In the instant case, the nature of allegation is very different and of a serious nature touching the dignity of two persons. There are specific rules under CCS (CCA) for inquiring into such type of complaint. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of transfer, which is used as a cloak of punishment for misconduct may be punitive in nature.
21. In my view, when there are allegations of enumerated misconduct as per Conduct Rules against an employee, the proper course would be to take steps for initiating appropriate enquiry, in consonance with the relevant rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 20 O.A. No. 753/2011 has also said in Somesh Tiwari's case reported in [2009 (1) SCC (L&S) 411] that It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way or or in lieu of punishment.
22. It is also to be considered in the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of this case that the guidelines as settled in Vishaka's case by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding sexual harassment in work place that the complainant and the perpetrator of the harassment should not work in the same place. The specific complaint of the complainant was that the conduct of the applicant interfered with the work, created an intimidating/offensive hostile work environment subjecting her to a form of sexual harassment. The same caused her extreme mental pain, anguish and emotional trauma. Both the applicant and the complainant asked for proper enquiry and both of them sought permission to file a defamation case.
23. I am not oblivious of the fact that the authority considered it fit and proper to issue the order of transfer and reversion to maintain congenial work atmosphere, enforce discipline, decency and decorum in administration. At the same time, before 21 O.A. No. 753/2011 arriving at a conclusion and issuing the said order of transfer, the authority ought to have made an attempt in accordance with law and in compliance of natural justice to ascertain the truth in the complaint of the complainant in respect of the guilt and involvement of the applicant directly by holding proper enquiry by the Complaint Committee, meant for dealing with such complaints. This is a case where reputation of both the complainant and the applicant is at stake. As such, any action taken in either way without arriving at a concrete conclusion will affect their right to life, which includes right to live with respect and dignity as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. The authority should have taken recourse to the statutory rules and procedure which govern both the applicant and the complainant. The guidelines regarding the functioning of the Complaint Committee says that the Complaint Committee established in each Ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints of sexual harassment shall be deemed to be the Inquiring Authority appointed by the disciplinary authority and the Complaint Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the Complaint Committee for holding the enquiry into such complaints of sexual harassment, the enquiry as far 22 O.A. No. 753/2011 as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
24. The learned counsel for the applicant referred to a judgment of Delhi High Court which says that the responsibility of the Complaint Committee, by virtue of the judgment in Medha Kotwal Lele (WP (Crl.) Nos. 173177/ 1999 decided on 26.04.2004) has immensely increased as it is now no more a fact finding Committee. It has been converted into an Inquiring Authority and, therefore, has to follow the procedure prescribedby Rule 14. The action taken cannot be supported on the plea that although Rules are ignored the principles of natural justice has been followed.
25. In the instant case, the inquiry, if any, held suffers from procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice. The complainant should not be in the Committee to enquire her complaint.
26. Having regard to the discussion made above, I set aside the order dated 05.10.2011 issued by the Chief Postmaster General, Maharashtra Circle. I direct the respondents to hold a proper enquiry by a duly constituted Complaint Committee meant for inquiring into the complaints of sexual harassment in accordance with the rules and procedure and complete the same within one month from the date of receipt of 23 O.A. No. 753/2011 a copy of this order, if necessary, after holding such enquiry on day to day basis. Till then, the impugned order of transfer dated 15.07.2011 will be kept in abeyance. The respondents, thereafter will take appropriate action in accordance with law and in public interest commensurating with administrative need.
27. The O.A. stands disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs.
(Smt. Chameli Majumdar) Member (J) os*