Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Om Prskash Rawat vs M/O Defence on 14 July, 2021
4' *'t
S(ii±v
K2
1 O.A. 1636:of 2018
U: CENTRAtADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL
CALCUTTA BENCH/KOLKATA
< 'i
X O.A./350/01636/2018
ws 1) M.A./350/003S67/2019
S.* !.
Coram Hon'bleMs.BidishaBanerjee/JudicialMember
Hon'bleiDr; N. Chatterjee>-Administrative'Member
Shri OM Prakash Rawat,
Son of Late.Bishwa Ram Rawat,
Aged about 57 years.
Residing at 73, East B. Park, IchapurEstate,
Post Office - Ichapur-Nawabganj,
District - 24-Parganas (North),
.!&
Pin - 743144 and working to .the'post of
Additional General Manager in Rifle- Factory,. Ishapore,
Post Office - Ishapore Nawabganj,
District - North 24-Parganas, Pin 743144.
Applicant.
-Versus-
;
1. Union of India
Servicethough the-Secretary,
Ministry of Defence fDefence and Production),
Governmentof India,
South Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman-cum-DGOF,
Ordnance Factory Board, i
I
Having hisroffice;at .10A,
Shaheed Khudiram Bose Road,
Kolkata - 700001.
3. The Senior General Manager,
Ordnance Factory,
Kalpi Road, Kanpur, 3
■A
Uttar Pradesh, Pin - 208009.
1^
4. The General Manager,
OrdnanceFactory,
Kalpi Road,.Kanpur,
'v|
Uttar Pradesh, Pin - 208009.
*
'■I
-- 'Vi
ri-jiik'Asiafli'
T •.'
2 O.A. 1636 of 2018 '
5. The Additional General Manager,
(Administration) Ordnance Factory,
Kalpi Road, Kanpur,
Uttar Pradesh, Pin - 208009.
6. The Deputy General Manager,
(Administration) Ordnance Factory,
Kalpi Road, Kanpur,
Uttar Pradesh, Pin - 208009.
7. The Secretary,
Ordnance Factory Board,
Having his office at 10A,
Shaheed Khudiram.Bose Road,
Kolkata - 700 001.
8. Mrs: Urmila Yadav,
Personnel No. 305404 workingias.PA to
Principal Medical Officer, PMO/Incharge,
Ordnance Factory Hospital/ Armapur:Estate,
Kanpur, Pin-
9. Mr. Rajneesh Kumar,
Joint General Manager/Administration,
Indian Ordnance Factories,
Ordnance Cable Factory,
Chandigarh, Pin-160002.
Respondents.
Forthe-applicant Mr. P.C. Das, Counsel
Ms. T. Maity,-Counsel
For therespondents Mr. B.P. Manna, Counsel
■-M
Dateof Order: fb. o? ■
ORDER
-• Per i BidishasBanerieer^Judicial Member Heard :Ld.rCounsels.
2. This:application"hasibeen-preferred:t02seekthefollowing:renefs:
•r :'**■ f
-r -V- •«*:•;*** V 3 O.A. 1636 of 2018 "%-(a) ToSquosh ond/or set aside the impugned complaint dated 15.04.2013 made by Mrs. Urmila Yadav the then Personal Assistant" against the applicant in respect of using slang and unparliamentary languages which is not g complaint^of sexual harassment being 'A nnexure A-3 of this original application.
(b) To quash-and/or set aside the impugned Enquiry Report" dated 30.0712014 submitted by Women SexuaTHarassment Committee/OFC being Annexure^A-16 of this original application.
(cj To quash and/or set aside the impugned penalty orderof'punishment dated 25*h September, 2018 which was imposed against the applicant by the Undersecretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence/Department of Defence Production by which they have imposed of penalty of 'Reduction of pay by,two stages for a periodvf one yearwithfurtherdirectionsthat he will earn, increments of pay during the period of such -reduction and the reduction will not have effect of postponing-the future increments of his pay, omthe applicant which has been imposed without any due process of law and the~aforesaid-penalty orderrhas-been-sent-to~'the~applicant-vide office.order dated 06.10.2018 and yourapplicant has received the same-on 06.10.2618 being Annexure A-26 of this-originaTappHcation.
(d) To dedare-that-the-entire-proceeding-which has-beeninitiated by the concerneddepartment-on-thebasis-ofthebaselesscompiaintmadebythe private-respondent^against7the~applicant-by~appfying-the~statutory~act of the Sexual- Harassment of Women at Workplace' (Prevention, Prohibition and Redr&ssal) Act, 2013 is bad in law and illegal as because the said Act came into force with effect from 22.04.2013 as per Gazette Notification dated 22,64.2013-and before enactmenUof said Act in the Official Gazette, the said complaint was made by Mrs. Urmila Yadav on 15.04.2013 and the said Act is not applicable in the presentappiicant's caseis-concerned and on that ground alone the entire proceeding which was conducted on the basis of the s&Td complaint may be liable to-quashed and/or set-aside and the applicant should be exonerated in-respect of all charges.
(e) TO pass-an-appropriate order directing-the respondent~authority to withdravJtheimpugned'penalty-order-ofpunishment:dated.25th-September, 2018 which'was imposed~against-the~applicant^by--the - Undersecretary, Government of India, Ministry- of Defence, Department of Defence Production being-Annexure A-26 of this original-application-and to give ail consequential benefits-to-the present-applicant-and vlso-to -impose-cost at least Rsl $,00,000/- (Rupees- two- lacs) against the private respondent for making baseless complaint against the applicant only to damage the:service career of the applicant who has done no wrong on his partfor advising the private respondent to-come office-timely and-to maintain-the-duties in-office hours by hot absenting habitually."
3. The penalty order is extracted hereunder for clarity:
I ■ r-i.*/;
4 O.A. 1636 of 2018 /r No.4(3j/2015- D (Estt/Gaztt) Government of India Ministry of Defence Department of Defence Production D (Estt/Gaztt) Room No.339, B-Wing Sena Bhawan;: New Delhi Dated: 25th September;2018 ORDER WHEREAS disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Shri O.P. Rawat, AGM/OFC (now AGM/RFI, Kolkata) on the complaint of sexual harassment by Smt Urmila Yadav, PA/OEC (the then PA to the CO). Based on the complaint dated 15.04.2013 made by Msr Urmila Yadav, PA, Committee on sexual harassment was constituted in OF Kanpur. The Committee inquired into the allegations-and concluded~that~the allegation of sexual harassment is established by virtue ofevidenceson record.
2. AND WHEREAS the Competent Disciplinary Authority in MoD'has accepted the Inquiry Report and a copy of the Inquiry Report was forwarded to Shri O.P. Rawat for his defence submission on 13.06.2016. Shri O.P. Rawat has submitted:his representation -against the -lnquiry Report-on 09.12.2016.
zr
3. AND WHEREAS after considering the inquiry report, the representation-of Shri O.P. Rawat, AGM against-the inquiryTeport and the facts bofne on :record-the:Competent-Disciplinary Authority in the-Ministry has come to the following -conclusion:
(af , In the Inquiry Report; sexual harassment-pf-woman at work place has been conclusively established by virtue of evidences on repaid and the Competent Disciplinary Authority in MoD accepted the Inquiry Report.
(ti)./' Nothing on record established thatthe Inquiry Committee was gender biased as claimed by Shri O.P. Rawat and his claim that the Cornmittee was caste biased not established.
(c/ Shri 0 P Rawat adopted-delay tactics during the inquiry proceedings: Hezaporoached to^Hon'ble CAT auestioninaxonstitution of 'the Women's Sexual Harassment Committee -but Hon'bfe CAT upheld the constitution~ofthe-committee.
(d) ' It was derived that Shri O.P. Rawat^used-gbusive-language in front of^the Complainantithe 'ladv~Officerhand:vitiated-the:decencv ohd modesty of the Workplace. As a Senior Officer he- should maintain proper decorum of the office. It is seen from the evidence thai the-officer- was in the habit of using-abusive 'lanauaae in the ■■"V---------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 pfesence of the~complainantwhich-is-termed assexuollv coloured and hence deemed to be a case of sexual-harassment.
i »v « / '
- ■ - y 5 OA 1636 of 2018 (ej The term "sexual harassment" has many aspects and connotations. As per the order of Supreme Court dated .20.01.1999 related to Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra, it is established that "A conduct which is against moral sanctions and which did not withstand the test of decency and modestv and which projected unwelcome sexual advances. Such an action on the part of the respondent would be squarely covered by the term Sexual Harassment."
4. AND WHEREAS the Disciplinary Authority after giving careful consideration to the~ charges, inquiry report, submission of charged officer and the-gravity of the misconduct hasxome to conclusion that the charges of sexual harassment~against the charged officer are established-and he deserves majorpenalty.
'• :
5. NOW THEREFORE, the President as Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of the power conferred - under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA), Rules 1965, hereby orders-for imposition of penalty of "Reduction of pay by two stages for a period of' one year with further directions that he will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and the reduction will not have effect of postponing the future increments-of his pay", on Shri O.P. Rawat, Addl. General Manager/OCFC (Presently AGM/ RFI).
By order and in the name of the President of India Sd/-
(Biswajit Sarkar) .
Undersecretary to the Govt, of India"
v.
4. The legal lacunae itv the' conduct'of'proceedings'that-culminated into .the impugned penalty order, as pleaded in this OA, are inter alia the following:
1) The complainant, a woman was the junior most PA given to the applicant. She was in habit of taking frequent leave and official work was suffering due to hernon-availability on the work spot.
The Administration was frequently apprised of the inconveniences cause by her and how the office work suffered. Requests'were made to make alternate arrangement when she goes on leave, but Administration did not pay head to the requests instead enquiry. Administration did not solve the problem and conducted did not take any counseling session for her.
2) The* enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules in asmuch as (ip The-copy of-the-proceeding rand statement of witnesses were not provided.to the applicant.
■ c f •• V-"0-0\v4.
6 O.A. 1636 of 2018 (iij The aggrieved woman-(complainant) was not~allowed to :be cross-examined by the applicant £_L (Hi); No defence assistance was provided.
(iv) Audio recordings of the proceedings were not provided to the applicant
(v) The request for personal interview with the disciplinary authority was not considered.
(vi) The enquiry officer admitted that she has enquired with the other officers under whom the aggrieved woman worked, but nothing is available on record.
(vii) The enquiry committee has not enquired from the. male and female employees attached to the office of the applicant.
(viii) The required documents were not supplied to the applicant His provisional reply on 31.12.2014-against the. so-called enquiry report submitted by the Committee^and a detailedreply against the enquiry report dated 30.07.2014 werenot considered.
(ix) The decision has been taken by enquiry committee based on three-fourth majority but the committee hasmot recorded the opinion ofany male employee and has failed to justify such inaction.
a"'.''
3) Thqt Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace' (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 will not be applicable because the. said Act came into force with effect from 22.04.2013 as per Gazette-Notification dated 22-04.2013 whereas the complaint was made on 15.04.2013 by Mrs. Urmila Ybdav. His representation on 19.09.2016 before the 1st Appeiiate Authority the Senior General Manager (Administration), Ordnance Factory, Kalpi Rodd, Kanpur in respect ofmon-applicability of thesaid act was not responded to.
4) Thdt a^Complaints:Committee:should-beiheaded'by'a':woman and-not iess than ffalf of itsmembers should be women-andrthat-further to prevent the possibility of any undue pressure or influence from, senior levels, it should be headed by an officer sufficiently high in rank so as to lend credibility to the investigations whereas all the officers of the Committee were junior to the applicant therefore the enquiry report cannot be sustainable in respect of the DOP&T office memo dated 2nd February, 2009.
.
5) Thqt the penalty vide order dated 25th September, 2018 has been imposed without any due process of law.
* ■V.
5. It is discernible that the applicant had raised all these grounds in his representations'and reply to enquiryTepqrt including violation of procedure, but :jn f V* li J! I ( 7 O.A. 1636 of.2018 <i I:
!};
they seem to have::not:been"addressedito:rby^he5disciplinary--authoritv:as=evident fromits-order-suprarThereis no'next tier-'availabler.to-seek remedy.'
6. Hencepn theTintenest:of justice-the^matter'is:sent:back to:.the:.Disciplinary mm %i Authority to-reeonsider the: legal lacunae^enumerated:supra^as~highlighted:imthe reply and- issue an-appropriate reasoned-and-speaking order dealing\with-the same.
O.A. accordingly stands:disposed of. M^A. also stands disposed of. No costs.
A
y
'iM'
/ --. /
i
(Dr; N."Chatterjee) (Bidisha^Banerjee)
Administrative Member 'JudiciallMefnber^
drh
• .r
■
>
,-J