Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijay Dhaker vs Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd on 3 November, 2020
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 4) [CW-8259/2020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8259/2020 Vijay Dhaker S/o Shri Balu Lal Dhaker, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Type-Iv, 29-B, Anukiran Colony, Bhabha Nagar, Rawatbhata, Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner Versus
1. Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd., Through Its Chairman And Managing Director, Nabhikiya Urja Bhawan, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai-400094.
2. Director, Human Resources (H.r.), Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd.nabhikiya Urja Bhawan, Anushkati Nagar, Mumbai- 400094.
3. Site Director, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Unit 1 To 8, Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd.rawatbhata Rajasthan Site P.o. Anushakti Via Kota 323303.
4. Head, Human Resources (H.r.), Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Unit 1 To 8, Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd.rawatbhata Rajasthan Site, P.o. -Anushakti Via Kota 323303.
5. Chairperson, Internal Compllaints Committee, Rajasthan Atomic Power Station, Unit 1 To 8, Nuclear Power Corporation Of India Ltd.rawatbhata Rajasthan Site, P.o. - Anushakti Via Kota 323303.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Rajvanshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjay Nahar
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
03/11/2020
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the charge-sheet dated 10.12.2019 proposing disciplinary action (Downloaded on 04/11/2020 at 08:33:12 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-8259/2020] against the petitioner in furtherance of allegations of sexual harassment levelled by his co-worker.
2. Mr. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention towards Section 11 & 13 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013") and contended that the respondents were required not only to hear the petitioner during the process of Internal Committee Inquiry / in-house inquiry but were also required to provide a copy of the finding and report of such committee.
3. While accepting that the report of the committee was not provided to the petitioner before the issuance of charge-sheet, learned counsel argued that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, as he would be given due opportunity to defend his case or to file objection against the report so furnished by the Inquiry Committee constituted under Section 11 of the Act of 2013.
4. Mr. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that non-compliance of mandatory statutory provision itself is a prejudice and the inquiry under consideration being conducted by the respondents, is, thus vitiated.
5. It was also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that members of the Internal Inquiry Committee and the Legal Committee constituted under Section 11 of the Act of 2013 and the Committee constituted for the purpose of deciding charges against the petitioner are same and the petitioner cannot expect a fair trial during the disciplinary enquiry.
6. Mr. Nahar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, at the outset submitted that the petitioner has an efficacious (Downloaded on 04/11/2020 at 08:33:12 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-8259/2020] alternate remedy in the form of appeal as per the Headquarter instruction issued by respondent corporation.
7. It was also contended that the petitioner had duly been heard during the course of in-house inquiry by the committee while conceding that the report of the committee was not provided to the petitioner. It was, however, highlighted that the same was later provided to the petitioner, along with the charge-sheet.
8. Mr. Nahar, invited Court's attention towards Rule 14(2) of Central Civil Services Rules (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 and submitted that it is rather a mandate of law, that in case of sexual harassment, the members of the Committee should be the same, who conducted the in house enquiry.
9. Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1965 are reproduced hereunder :-
"Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. Provided that 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 (Downloaded on 04/11/2020 at 08:33:12 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-8259/2020] far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules."
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference at this stage is warranted in the present factual backdrop. Inquiry in question is not alleged to be without jurisdiction, hence no intervention is required.
11. The petitioner has already filed his detailed objection and reply before the competent authority which is looking into the charges framed against him.
12. This Court has no reason to apprehend that the committee constituted to look into the charges framed against the petitioner will not abide by law.
13. As per Rule 14(2) same member can conduct disciplinary enquiry.
14. It is hereby directed that said committee will conduct the enquiry without being influenced by the Internal Inquiry Report dated 07.10.2019. It shall adhere to principles of natural justice and proceed in accordance with law.
15. The petitioner will be free to take appropriate legal remedies against the final order, the same is in any manner prejudiced to his rights.
16. Dismissal of the present writ petition or any observation made in the order instant will be treated to be prima-facie observation of the Court and the same will have no bearing on petitioner's rights.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 12-Amar/-
(Downloaded on 04/11/2020 at 08:33:12 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)