R. Rajasekaran vs Union Of India & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 4849 Cal

     02
15.09.2021
 Ct. No.23
     pg.
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                     CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
                               APPELLATE SIDE
                          (Through Video Conference)

                               WPA 11563 of 2021

                                 R. Rajasekaran
                                        Vs.
                               Union of India & Ors.


                    Mr.   Jaydip Kar, Sr. Advocate
                    Mr.   Dhiraj Trivedi
                    Mr.   Amit Sharma
                    Mr.   Bikash Kumar Singh
                                  ... For the petitioner

                    Mr. Siddhartha Lahiri
                    Mr. Tapan Bhanja
                               ... For the respondents no.1, 3 & 4

Ms. Chama Mookherji Ms. Sucharita Ray ... For the State

A letter dated 8th September, 2021 written by the

advocate-on-record for the petitioner informing the added

respondent no.6 that the matter will appear in the list

today is made over to the Court along with the track

report downloaded from the official website of the India

Post be taken on record.

It appears that the said respondent no.6 has been

served with the notice. This is the second occasion that

the respondent no.6 remains unrepresented after being

served with the copy of the writ petition and intimation as

to the date when the matter will be taken up. The matter

is, thus, taken up in the absence of the respondent no.6.

On behalf of the respondents no.1, 3 and 4, a

preliminary point as to maintainability has been raised.

The said respondents have referred to the proviso to Rule

14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control &

Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the "1965

Rules") to contend that an Inquiry Committee probing into

the allegations of sexual harassment within the meaning

of Rule 3-C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,

1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "1964 Rules") is

deemed to be an Inquiring Authority appointed by the

Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of the said Rules.

The said respondents thereafter rely upon a judgment

reported in (2013) 1 SCC 311 (Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors.

v. Union of India & Ors.) and in particular paragraph 2

thereof in support of the contention that the Complaint

Committee will be deemed to be an Inquiry Authority for

the purpose of 1964 Rules.

The respondents then refer to the proviso to sub-

section (1) of Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment of

Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "2013

Act"). Finally, referring to Section 14(1)(c) of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to

the "1985 Act"), the respondents say that the subject

matter of challenge in the instant writ petition relates to

the service matter of the petitioner. The petitioner,

admittedly, is a central civil servant and, as such, has to

ventilate his grievance, being the subject matter of the

instant writ petition, before the Central Administrative

Tribunal (in short "CAT") constituted under the 1985 Act.

The respondents also refer to the first complaint made by

the respondent no.6 on 17th June, 2015 appearing at

pages 39 to 51 of the writ petition and the Conciliation

Report dated 24th November, 2016 appearing at pages 53

to 57 of the writ petition. Then referring to the

representation on the inquiry report filed by the

respondent no.6 on 13th October, 2019 appearing at

pages 84 to 94 of the writ petition, the respondents no.1,

3 and 4 say that the writ petition cannot be received,

entertained and determined by this Court due to lack of

jurisdiction.

On behalf of the petitioner responding to the point

of maintainability raised by the respondents no.1, 3 and

4, it is submitted that the petitioner's case is at a pre-

charge sheet stage. An inquiry committee constituted

under the 2013 Act has recorded the settlement in

conciliation between the complainant (respondent no.6)

and the petitioner. Once such conciliation is recorded in

view of the provisions of Section 10(4) of the 2013 Act,

there is no scope of any further enquiry. Since there is no

scope of any further enquiry and that there has been a

settlement, the Inquiry Committee cannot also

recommend for initiation of any disciplinary proceedings

(in short "DP") under Section 13 of the 2013 Act as

against the petitioner. The entire exercise has taken place

pursuant to the complaint dated 17th January, 2015

when the 2013 Act has come into operation. The inquiry

committee which conducted the enquiry proceedings

which led to the settlement is a Committee constituted

under Section 4 of the 2013 Act. This is an independent

committee and cannot be deemed to be the disciplinary

authority to bring the matter within the domain of DP.

Since there is no DP, the question of approaching CAT

does not arise.

It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner

that the proviso to Rule 14(2) was brought into operation

prior to the 2013 Act and, as such, the same has become

redundant on the promulgation of 2013 Act and on

framing of rules thereunder. An enquiry proceedings,

according to the petitioner, initiated under a central

statute (2013 Act) and the consequences arising

therefrom in the event no DP is recommended cannot

come within the parlance of service matter in respect of

the petitioner for which the petitioner has to approach the

CAT. Moreover, the case of the petitioner does not fall

within the ambit of Section 14 of the 1985 Act and, as

such, the petitioner is not required to go before the CAT.

In reply it is submitted by the respondents no.1, 3

and 4 that the petitioner is an officer under the Indian

Police Service and, as such, a central civil servant. The

petitioner was on deputation in the Central Reserve Police

Force (in short "CRPF") when the complaint was made.

The petitioner because of being in CRPF the enquiry

proceedings under the provisions of 2013 Act was made

applicable and the Inquiry Committee which had probed

into the matter will be the Disciplinary Authority. The

Disciplinary Authority under the 1964 and 1965 Rules is,

however, empowered to impose punishment to the

petitioner. The order of the Inquiry Committee is required

to be challenged under the 1964 and 1965 Rules. The

petitioner, therefor, is required to ventilate his grievance

before the CAT.

The matter is adjourned for further consideration

on this issue on 22nd September, 2021.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)