Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Naresh vs Textiles on 20 November, 2024
1
O.A. No. 719/2023
MA No. 2734/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 719/2023
MA No.2734/2024
Reserved on: 11.11.2024
Pronounced on: 20.11.2024
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A)
Naresh, aged 24 years,
S/o Sh. Subhash Chand,
Ex-Workshop Foreman from
Development Commissioner of Handlooms,
Udyog Bhawan, - Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India,
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
2. The Development Commissioner for Handlooms,
Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India,
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
3. The Chief Enforcement Officer,
The Development Commissioner of Handlooms's
Office, Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India,
Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110011
4. The Development Commissioner for Handlooms,
Indian Institute of Handloom Technology,
Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India,
Jawaharnagar, Khanapara,
Guwahati-781022
- Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Acharya Santosh Prasad)
2
O.A. No. 719/2023
MA No. 2734/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. B.Anand, Member (A):
The factual matrix of this case as gleaned from the available record is that the applicant, an appointee to the post of Workshop Foreman in Indian Institute of Handloom Technology, Guwahati, on 10.08.2020, on direct recruitment basis, was accused of serious misdemeanor towards girls' students as found in the complaint dated 02.12.2021 given by the 2nd year girls' student in the said Institute and in order to go into these misdemeanors, the Director of the said Institute has constituted an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) as contemplated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The said Committee had conducted three meetings dated 13.12.2021, 12.01.2022 and 07.02.2022. On the third meeting, i.e., 07.02.2022, the members of the ICC had observed that "the accused person Shri Naresh is an young Government official and the offence committed by him for tempting the teenage girl students, his act of intimidation towards girl students cannot be ignored and if it is not prevented 3 O.A. No. 719/2023 MA No. 2734/2024 at this stage, he would be encouraged for committing more offences among girl students and therefore, the ICC has recommended that suitable action requires to be taken for removing Shri Naresh from service from the institute after taking into consideration of risk factors for girls students." Based on this observation of the ICC in its 3rd and final meeting held on 17.02.2022, the respondent no.3 had issued the impugned order dated 25.03.2022 that the recommendations of the ICC had been accepted by the competent authority and that the due procedure under Rule 14(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 regarding conduct of inquiry has been followed and the said applicant, who is a probationer and currently under suspension, is terminated from Govt. service with immediate effect. The appeal dated 07.05.;2022 filed by the applicant before the respondent no.1 was also rejected by the appellate authority's order dated 23.01.2023 resulting in confirmation of the termination from government service of the applicant.
2. It is the contention of the applicant that Rule 14(2) of the CCS(CCA)Rules, 1965 has not been followed in this case. In support of his arguments, 4 O.A. No. 719/2023 MA No. 2734/2024 the applicant's counsel draws attention to the last line of Rule 14(2) of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 which provides that "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." So as contemplated in the above Rule, the inquiry conducted by the ICC should have been properly conducted as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules, which was not at all followed in this case.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that neither a statement of imputation of charges was given to the applicant, nor a list of 5 O.A. No. 719/2023 MA No. 2734/2024 witnesses, who could be cross-examined by the applicant, was provided to him, nor was the copy of the report of the ICC furnished to him to submit his defence, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. He adds that the applicant was only asked to join inquiry by way of video conference and none of the other procedures prescribed under the Rules as enumerated above were followed in his case.
4. In support of the contentions of the applicant that the termination of the services of the applicant is not terminus simpliciter and it is basically having stigma attached to it, the applicant's counsel has relied upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2470/2013 pronounced on 08.02.2023 and another in OA No. 2998/2021 pronounced on 02.03.2024. He further relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court (Madurai Bench) in WP(MD) No. 979/2019 in the case of Dr. P. Govindaraju vs. The Manonmaniam Sundaranar University to contend that the applicant should be given an opportunity to explain his position before imposing major penalties under Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace 6 O.A. No. 719/2023 MA No. 2734/2024 (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Act, 2013. He also relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Govt. of India & Anr. (1984)2 SCC 369 wherein it was ruled that even in case of probationer, court can go beyond the formal order of discharge to find the real cause of action.
5. Based on the above averments, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of qualifying the impugned order dated 25.03.2022, order dated 23.01.2023 (Annex.A/1 & A/2) and entire disciplinary proceedings, declaring to the effect that the same is illegal and arbitrary and consequently, pass an order of reinstatement of the applicant in service with all the consequential benefits including the arrears of pay and allowances of intervening period.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the costs of litigation."
6. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of the applicant's counsel stating that the ICC was constituted by the respondents as stipulated in the Vishaka guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ensuring that two 7 O.A. No. 719/2023 MA No. 2734/2024 external members, one from Human Rights Law Network, Guwahati and the other from Shishu Sarathi, Guwahati, have been included in the ICC.
7. The respondents' counsel also states that the applicant has not submitted any facts in his favour and bringing forth only procedural issues which are to be decided by the appellate authority. The respondents' counsel further submits that due procedure under Rule 14(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 regarding conduct of inquiry, has been followed by the ICC of IIHT, Guwahati.
8. The respondents, as regards to the judgments relied upon by the applicant in the case of Dr. P.Govindaraju Vs. the Manonmaniam Sundaranar University & Anr., in W.P. (MD) No. 979/2019 and in the case of Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Govt. of India & Anr., (1984)2 SCC 369, submits that the these cases cited by the applicant are matter of records and hence not be relied upon in this case.
9. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
10. We have gone through the order dated 08.02.203 8 O.A. No. 719/2023 MA No. 2734/2024 passed in OA No. 2470/2015 stating that if the termination of probation is not a terminus simplicitor and it has stigma attached to it, then it is the duty of the court to examine whether the due process of law and procedures as contained in Rule 14(2) and Rule 15 of CCS(CCA) Rules, have been adhered to or not. We draw guidance from another judgment dated 02.03.2024 in OA No. 2998/2021 pronounced by the CAT, PB in which one of us (Mr. R.N. Singh) was on the Bench holding that "the inquiry conducted by the ICC can be at the best termed as a preliminary investigation/inquiry. It was to be followed by the second stage when the ICC acts as an inquiring authority wherein inquiry is conducted as far as practicable as per Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
11. While amendments have been made to Rule 14(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1967 to the effect that "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 9 O.A. No. 719/2023 MA No. 2734/2024 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.", what needs to be seen whether ICC has followed wherever practicable the procedures contemplated in the said Rules. We find from the record available on file that copy of the complaint given by the 2nd year Girl student has not been handed over to the applicant and no opportunity, too, was given to him to present his defence, including cross-examination of witnesses and the report of ICC was accepted by the respondent no.2 without sharing a copy of the ICC's report with the applicant and the services of the applicant was terminated without following the principles of natural justice.
12. Therefore, we quash the order of termination of the services of the applicant as probationer and remit the case back to the respondents with liberty to start the proceedings under Rule 14(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 10 O.A. No. 719/2023 MA No. 2734/2024 1965, afresh by following the due procedures contemplated in the said Rules. The applicant will be permitted to be reinstated in service as a probationer without any consequential benefits of pay and allowances on the principle 'No work no pay'.
13. The exercise as ordained above will be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending MA, if any, also stands disposed of.
(B. Anand) (R.N. Singh) Member (A) Member (J) /lg/