Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dinesh Chandra Mishra vs Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 23 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No. 332/2024
MA Nos.364/24, 371/24,
758/24, 2352/24,
2353/24, 2354/24,
3137/24, 2066/25,
2067/25 & 2069/25
Reserved on: 15.01.2026
Pronounced on: 23.01.2026
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Dinesh Chandra Mishra,
S/o Ex. Sri GP Mishra, age 59 years,
R/o A2/14, Pkt.3; Sector 34 Rohini, Delhi-39
Retd. Technical Officer,
Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation,
218, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun 248195 (UK)
-Applicant in person
Versus
1. Indian Council of Agriculture Research,
Through Director General of ICAR and
Secretary DARE, ICAR (Min. of Agr.)
Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi
Email: [email protected]
2. The Director, ICAR: Indian Institute
Of Soil and Water Conservation,
218, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun 248195
Email: [email protected]
(By Advocates: Mr. Mr. Ajay Kr. Tyagi with Mr. Lekhraj Jainth)
LALIT 2026.01.
30
GOSA 10:04:45
IN +05'30'
2
ORDER
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):
The applicant has filed the present OA seeking the following reliefs:-
"8.1 Direction may kindly be given to set aside penalty imposed on the ground, video is neither pornography or obscene and there is no material evidence on record which may prove, video was received on WhatsApp by the complainant, even at admission stage, if not, 8.2 Direction may please be then given for another de novo enquiry from the stage of complaint, if woman formally prefer to submit request for amendment in complaint, the typing error of mobile number; learning the contents of Annexure of OA including section C of the ground (para 5.13 to 5.16) which duly clarify, enquiry is incomplete and held against the procedure, without giving direction to file reply, as recommendation of IA (A-22), speaking order of Secretary ICAR(A-1) and President ICAR (A-1) are already available as annexure which contents, suffice the need of reply, however respondent may have liberty to file reply anytime at own, if not.
8.3 Direction may please be passed to set aside penalty imposed as explained in impugned orders attached herewith as Annexure P-1, on compilation of pleading and arguments.
8.4 Order be passed as deemed fit and be allowed consequential benefits."
2. The applicant, in the present OA, submits that he has been falsely implicated under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, and has been illegally penalized with the punishment of compulsory retirement by misuse of statutory and disciplinary powers. The entire proceedings are vitiated by lack of jurisdiction, absence of material evidence, LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 3 procedural irregularities, violation of principles of natural justice, and mala fide exercise of authority.
3. The applicant further submits that the allegation against him arises solely from forwarding a WhatsApp video of approximately 1.25 minutes depicting a woman performing yoga while wearing a bikini. The video does not depict any sexual act, pornography, or conduct of sexual nature. The visual focus of the video is on physical and muscular movements associated with yoga practice, and it does not have the tendency to arouse sexual desire. As per settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, mere depiction of nudity or semi-nudity does not constitute obscenity or pornography unless it appeals to prurient interest or is sexually explicit. The said video, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of sexual harassment or pornography under Rule 2(n) of the Act.
4. The applicant urged that the complainant failed to establish that she actually received the said video on a WhatsApp account registered in her name. In the original complaint as well as in the charge sheet, a nine-digit mobile number was mentioned, which is non-existent and incapable of receiving WhatsApp messages or videos. Neither the complaint nor the charge sheet was ever amended to correct this fundamental defect. In the absence of a valid mobile number and proof of WhatsApp registration in the complainant's name, LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 4 the very jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee to proceed against the applicant was doubtful and unsustainable in law.
5. Despite repeated objections raised by the applicant at every stage, the ICC and later the Inquiry Authority proceeded on assumptions and conjectures. The complainant, at a very late stage during the de novo inquiry, orally claimed that the mobile number mentioned in the complaint was a typographical error. However, she did not file any application seeking amendment of the complaint, and no amendment was ever carried out either in the complaint or in the charge sheet. In the absence of such amendment, the applicant could not legally be required to produce Call Detail Records, nor could any adverse inference be drawn against him for non-production of CDR.
6. The applicant was initially charge-sheeted under Rule 2(n)(iv) of the Act, which relates to showing pornography. However, no finding of pornography was ever recorded. The Inquiry Authority itself categorized the video merely as "objectionable" and not pornographic. Ultimately, the applicant was held guilty under Rule 2(n)(v), relating to unwelcome conduct of sexual nature, without any amendment of charges. Punishing the applicant under a provision different from the one under which he was charged is per se illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution. LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 5
7. The inquiry proceedings were further vitiated by denial of reasonable opportunity to the applicant to defend himself. The applicant specifically requested inspection of the complainant's mobile phone to ascertain whether the WhatsApp account was registered in her name or in the name of her husband, and to verify actual receipt of the video. This request was arbitrarily rejected without assigning any reason. Material documents and evidence necessary for effective defence were not supplied to the applicant, despite repeated requests.
8. The ICC itself had attempted to obtain Call Detail Records at an early stage, which is evident from the record. However, the same was neither disclosed to the applicant nor relied upon while arriving at the conclusion, and instead, the applicant was held guilty solely on the ground that he failed to produce CDR. Such an approach is arbitrary, unfair, and legally impermissible.
9. An additional charge was framed against the applicant based on statements made by him in his written reply to the ICC, which were expressly stated to be confidential and were not addressed or communicated to the complainant. Such internal defence statements, even if assumed to be inappropriate, do not constitute sexual harassment under the Act, as they were neither unwelcome conduct nor directed towards the complainant. Treating such statements as LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 6 misconduct under the Sexual Harassment Act is wholly misconceived and contrary to law.
10. During the pendency of proceedings, the applicant was also transferred in violation of the provisions of the Act and binding judicial precedents, reflecting mala fide intent and victimization. The issue of illegal transfer is being challenged separately, but it demonstrates the hostile and biased approach adopted by the authorities throughout the proceedings.
11. The Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and higher authorities passed non-speaking and mechanical orders, without dealing with the applicant's detailed submissions, procedural violations, lack of evidence, and jurisdictional defects. The penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the applicant is grossly disproportionate to the alleged act and is unsupported by any legally sustainable finding.
12. The applicant joined NBPGR in the year 1994 and served the organization for more than two decades with an unblemished record. The complaint was filed in August 2018. Thereafter, preliminary inquiry, disciplinary proceedings, and a de novo inquiry were conducted by the ICC itself, all of which were marred by procedural lapses, shifting stands, denial of defence rights, and absence of material proof. The applicant was twice imposed with the punishment of compulsory retirement. His appeals and representations before the LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 7 Secretary ICAR, the President ICAR, and other higher authorities were rejected without proper application of mind.
13. Having exhausted all departmental remedies and being left without any efficacious alternative remedy, the applicant is constrained to approach the Hon'ble Tribunal seeking quashing of the impugned penalty orders and restoration of his service with all consequential benefits.
14. The applicant has argued that the entire disciplinary action taken against him is illegal, arbitrary, violative of statutory rules, and vitiated by mala fide intent. The enquiry proceedings and the impugned penalty suffer from fundamental procedural lapses, lack of jurisdiction, absence of material evidence, and non-compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as well as the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
15. The applicant has alleged that the enquiry was conducted beyond the scope of the charge sheet. The complaint and the charge sheet alleged receipt of the video on a nine-digit mobile number, which is non-existent. Although the complainant later claimed that the incorrect number was a typographical error, she never sought amendment of the complaint, nor was the charge sheet amended by the competent authority. In the absence of such amendment, the Inquiry Authority had no jurisdiction to proceed on a different factual basis. The Inquiry LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 8 Authority, being subordinate to the Disciplinary Authority, had no power to cure or amend defects in the charge sheet, rendering the enquiry legally unsustainable.
16. The applicant urged that he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself. At the commencement of the de novo enquiry, material documents and evidence required for defence were not supplied despite request. The Inquiry Authority arbitrarily refused to allow inspection of the complainant's mobile phone, which was essential to ascertain whether the WhatsApp account was registered in her name or in the name of her husband, and to verify actual receipt of the video. The screenshots and video provided were insufficient to establish ownership of the device or WhatsApp registration. As a result, it was never proved whether the complainant herself received the video, a foundational requirement under the Act. Proceeding without establishing this fact rendered the enquiry without jurisdiction.
17. It is further alleged that he was charge-sheeted under Rule 2(n)(iv) of the Act for "showing pornography" but was ultimately held guilty under Rule 2(n)(v) for alleged unwelcome conduct, without amendment of charges. The Inquiry Authority itself recorded that the video was merely "objectionable" and not pornographic or sexual in nature. Punishing the applicant under a provision different from the one under which he was LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 9 charged is a settled violation of principles of natural justice and vitiates the findings. The expectation that he should produce Call Detail Records was arbitrary and illegal. CDRs are third- party records and the responsibility to obtain them lies with the Inquiry Authority. The ICC itself attempted to secure CDR but neither disclosed nor relied upon them. The applicant was never legally required to produce CDR in the absence of correction of the complaint and charge sheet, and retrieval after the statutory period was technically impossible. Drawing adverse inference on this basis reflects non-application of mind and incomplete enquiry.
18. The applicant urged that the video in question does not constitute pornography or obscenity in law. The applicant relied on the binding judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, which clearly holds that nudity or semi-nudity per se is not obscene unless it arouses sexual desire. The Inquiry Authority wrongly disregarded this judgment by stating that it had no relevance to the Sexual Harassment Act, thereby committing a serious legal error.
19. The applicant submitted that even assuming receipt of the video, there was no insistence, compulsion, or coercion to view any content. The complainant voluntarily downloaded and watched the video. Rule 2(n)(iv) contemplates forced exposure to pornographic material of sexual nature, particularly in a LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 10 workplace setting. The Inquiry Authority never established that the content was sexual in nature, and therefore no offence under the Act was made out.
20. The applicant alleged that the Appellate Authority rejected his claim in a mechanical and illogical manner. It relied on mobile bills to infer receipt of the video, without addressing the critical issue of WhatsApp registration or ownership of the device. It treated the incorrect mobile number as a typographical error without any amendment on record and misapplied judgments rendered under different service rules, ignoring that the applicant was charged under a specific provision of the Sexual Harassment Act. Several vital submissions, including the applicant's contention regarding confidential defence statements not amounting to harassment, were not addressed at all.
21. The enquiry remains incomplete as essential issues were left undecided. No amended charge sheet was issued, Call Detail Records of either party were not examined, the alleged call made by the complainant to verify the sender was never substantiated, and no explanation was given as to how the video could have originated from a number different from the one with which the applicant's WhatsApp was registered. The complainant never articulated the parameters on which she LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 11 considered the video obscene, making objective adjudication impossible.
22. It is further alleged that the Inquiry Authority also failed to follow mandatory procedure under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, by not supplying documents and material evidence at the initial stage despite request. He submitted that numerous grounds raised in his representations and appeals remained unanswered, rendering the enquiry and subsequent decisions arbitrary and unsustainable.
23. In view of the above, the applicant submits that the enquiry is vitiated by grave procedural lapses, lack of jurisdiction, and absence of material proof, and that the impugned penalty is liable to be quashed, or in the alternative, the matter requires a fresh de novo enquiry strictly in accordance with law.
24. Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted at the outset that the present Original Application is not maintainable in the eyes of law and deserves outright dismissal. The applicant has not approached this Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands and has deliberately concealed material facts. The applicant has also misused the due process of law by filing the present OA on false, frivolous, and misleading grounds, and therefore he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.
LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 12
25. It is submitted that the true facts are that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant, Shri Dinesh Chandra Mishra, who was working as Senior Technical Assistant at ICAR-NBPGR, New Delhi, under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on the basis of a complaint filed by Smt. Sangita Tanwar, ACTO (Librarian), ICAR-NBPGR. A charge sheet was issued to the applicant in May 2019 after examination of the complaint by the Internal Complaints Committee. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 19.09.2020 imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.
26. It is further submitted that the applicant challenged the said order by filing an appeal, which was considered by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, after due consideration, ordered a de novo enquiry in the matter. In compliance with the said order, the Internal Complaints Committee conducted a fresh enquiry and submitted its final report on 09.08.2021. During this period, the applicant was transferred from ICAR-NBPGR, New Delhi to ICAR-IISWC, Dehradun. However, the applicant remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a long period and joined at Dehradun only on 28.08.2021. The report of the de novo enquiry along with relevant material was forwarded to the new Disciplinary Authority at ICAR-IISWC, Dehradun. The applicant was duly served with the enquiry report and given opportunity to LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 13 respond. After considering the entire material on record, the Disciplinary Authority passed a reasoned order dated 24.03.2022 again imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement.
27. The applicant preferred an appeal against the said order before the Secretary, ICAR, which was duly examined and rejected by a speaking order dated 26.08.2022. Thereafter, the applicant filed a revision petition before the DG, ICAR/Secretary, DARE, which was also considered and rejected by order dated 20.02.2023, thereby confirming the penalty imposed upon him.
28. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the enquiry, the applicant had been transferred in public interest to Issapur Farm, New Delhi, but he failed to comply with the transfer order and remained unauthorisedly absent from duty from 26.09.2018 to 27.08.2021. The competent authority treated the said period as dies-non for all purposes. The applicant's representation against this decision was also duly considered and disposed of.
29. On merits, it is submitted that the applicant has suppressed material facts and filed the OA on incorrect and misleading grounds. The complaint dated 29.08.2018 clearly states that Smt. Sangita Tanwar received a WhatsApp video of obscene and pornographic nature on her mobile number from LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 14 the applicant's mobile number. The Internal Complaints Committee verified the mobile numbers through Truecaller and also viewed the video, which was found to be obscene and unacceptable. The applicant also sent an email dated 27.09.2018 to the authorities containing derogatory, offensive, and highly objectionable language against the complainant, which clearly violated the dignity and modesty of a woman.
30. The conduct of the applicant shows that he failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a government servant, in violation of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, as extended to ICAR employees. The act of sending an obscene and pornographic video squarely falls within the definition of sexual harassment under Section 2(n)(iv) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
31. The applicant's contentions regarding mobile numbers are misleading. A corrigendum was issued by the competent authority correcting the typographical error in the mobile number mentioned in the charge sheet, with prior approval of the competent authority. The ICC submitted the video and other electronic evidence, including screenshots, in a pen drive, which forms part of the record and clearly establishes the misconduct of the applicant.
LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 15
32. The applicant has himself admitted to forwarding the video. His repeated use of derogatory and insulting language against the complainant further establishes his misconduct and lack of respect for women. The enquiry proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with law, principles of natural justice were fully complied with, and the applicant was granted adequate opportunity at every stage.
33. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority are based on evidence available on record and do not suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural irregularity. The present OA is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed only to mislead this Tribunal.
34. In view of the above facts and circumstances, counsel for the respondents submitted that the present Original Application is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
35. We have heard the applicant in person and also the learned counsel for the respondents at length and perused the pleadings available on record.
36. It is noted that the applicant has challenged the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty of compulsory retirement primarily on the grounds of alleged lack of LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 16 jurisdiction, procedural irregularities, absence of evidence, violation of principles of natural justice, and mala fide exercise of power. He has contended that the video in question was not obscene or pornographic, that the complaint suffered from defects regarding the mobile number, that the charge was altered without amendment, and that he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself.
37. On the other hand, the respondents have placed a detailed factual narrative supported by records to demonstrate that the disciplinary action was initiated and concluded strictly in accordance with law. It is not in dispute that a complaint dated 29.08.2018 was lodged by Smt. Sangita Tanwar, ACTO (Librarian), ICAR-NBPGR, alleging receipt of a WhatsApp video of obscene and pornographic nature from a mobile number traced to the applicant. The complaint was examined by the Internal Complaints Committee, which verified the relevant mobile numbers through Truecaller, viewed the video, and found the content to be obscene and unacceptable. The ICC also took note of the applicant's email dated 27.09.2018, containing derogatory, offensive, and highly objectionable remarks against the complainant, which clearly violated the dignity and modesty of a woman.
38. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and a charge sheet was issued to LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 17 the applicant. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by order dated 19.09.2020. On appeal, the Appellate Authority ordered a de novo enquiry, thereby granting the applicant an additional safeguard and opportunity. The de novo enquiry was conducted by the ICC, and its report dated 09.08.2021 was duly supplied to the applicant. After considering the report, the representation of the applicant, and the entire material on record, the Disciplinary Authority again imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement by a reasoned order dated 24.03.2022.
39. The applicant's appeal before the Secretary, ICAR, and the revision petition before the DG, ICAR/Secretary, DARE were also considered and rejected by speaking orders dated 26.08.2022 and 20.02.2023 respectively. Thus, the applicant was afforded multiple opportunities at every stage of the disciplinary process, including enquiry, appeal, and revision. The contention that principles of natural justice were violated is therefore not borne out from the record.
40. As regards the applicant's argument relating to the mobile number mentioned in the complaint and charge sheet, the respondents have satisfactorily explained that the discrepancy was a typographical error, which was subsequently corrected by issuance of a corrigendum with the approval of the competent authority. The ICC verified the mobile numbers and the LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 18 electronic evidence, including the video and WhatsApp screenshots, which were preserved in a pen drive and form part of the record. We do not find merit in the submission that the enquiry stood vitiated merely on account of an initial clerical error, particularly when the identity of the sender and recipient was verified during the enquiry.
41. The applicant's contention that the video does not constitute obscene or pornographic material is also not acceptable in the facts of the present case. The ICC, after viewing the video, found it to be obscene and unacceptable. Moreover, the applicant's own conduct, including forwarding such a video to a female colleague and sending subsequent derogatory and insulting emails, was rightly held to be violative of Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The act squarely falls within the ambit of sexual harassment as defined under Section 2(n)(iv) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The reliance placed by the applicant on judicial precedents relating to obscenity does not come to his aid in the present factual matrix, where the conduct complained of occurred in a workplace context and was found to be unwelcome, objectionable, and violative of service discipline.
42. The argument that the applicant was punished under a different provision than the one under which he was charged is LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 19 also without substance. The essence of the charge, namely sending obscene content and indulging in conduct unbecoming of a government servant, remained the same throughout the proceedings. No prejudice has been demonstrated to have been caused to the applicant on this account.
43. The plea regarding non-supply of documents and denial of inspection of the complainant's mobile phone also does not merit acceptance. The applicant has failed to show how any such alleged denial resulted in prejudice to his defence, especially when the electronic evidence was examined by the ICC and relied upon by the disciplinary authorities. The expectation that the applicant would produce Call Detail Records was only in the context of corroboration, and in any case, the findings are not based solely on non-production of CDRs but on the totality of evidence, including electronic material and the applicant's own conduct.
44. It is also noted that during the pendency of the proceedings, the applicant remained unauthorisedly absent from duty for a considerable period and failed to comply with transfer orders issued in public interest. The competent authority treated the said period as dies-non, and the applicant's representations in this regard were duly considered and disposed of. These facts further reflect adversely on the conduct of the applicant.
LALIT 2026.01.
30GOSA 10:04:45 IN +05'30' 20
45. The scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited. We cannot act as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the disciplinary authorities, unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or vitiated by patent illegality. In the present case, the disciplinary action is supported by material on record, the procedure prescribed under law has been followed, and the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority, and Revisional Authority are reasoned and based on due consideration of the applicant's submissions.
46. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no illegality, arbitrariness, or procedural impropriety in the impugned disciplinary proceedings or the penalty imposed upon the applicant. The Original Application is therefore found to be devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
47. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. Consequently, all the pending MAs stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/lg/
LALIT 2026.01.
30
GOSA 10:04:45
IN +05'30'