Delhi High Court
Director Ihbas And Another vs A K Roy And Others on 31 August, 2018
$~61
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 31st August, 2018
+ LPA 452/2017
DIRECTOR IHBAS & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr S.D. Singh, Mr Rahul Kumar
Singh, Mr Kamla Prasad and
Mr.Jitender Singh, Advs
versus
A K ROY & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Raj Kumar Sharma and
Mr.Narendra Singh, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 23784/2017 (delay)
1. This is an application seeking condonation of 126 days delay in filing
the appeal.
2. Subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited in the
Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund, the delay is condoned.
3. The application stands disposed of.
LPA 452/2017 and CM No. 23940/2017 (stay)
1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 20.12.2016
passed by a Single Judge of this Court. The respondent herein had
filed a writ petition. Challenge was laid to a Show Cause Notice
issued on 22.09.2016 containing articles of charge against the
respondent. The respondent herein had challenged the Show Cause
Notice on various grounds including the ground that principles of
natural justice had not been followed. Challenge was also laid on the
ground that Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1996 had not been
complied with. The learned Single Judge passed an order on
20.12.2016. Paragraphs 2 to 6 read as under:-
2. The second relief which is claimed in the writ petition
is for quashing the order of suspension which has been
issued against the petitioner.
3. So far as the first prayer/relief claimed by the
petitioner is concerned, during the course of arguments,
the provision of Rule 14(2) with its proviso of CCS
(CCA) Rules was examined along with Section 13(3) of
the Act and it was found that the Internal Complaints
Committee is deemed to be the enquiry committee and
which enquiry committee after preparing the enquiry
report on following principles the of natural justice and
the relevant rules under CCS (CCA) Rules recommends
appropriate action against the employee if found to be
delinquent. In the present case it is found that the Internal
Complaint Committee with respect to sexual harassment
complaint against the petitioner has treated the enquiry
before it only as a preliminary enquiry instead of treating
the enquiry as an enquiry to be done as an enquiry officer
under Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
4. From a reading of the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the
CCS (CCA) Rules it is clear that the Internal Complaints
Committee with respect to the sexual harassment
complaint is deemed to be the disciplinary authority as
also the enquiry authority when read with Section 13(3)
of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to
4/employer/Institute states that in view of the aforesaid
legal position the impugned Show Cause Notice dated
22.9.2016 be allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice
to the right of respondent nos. 2 to 4 to initiate
appropriate proceedings against the petitioner with
respect to the complaint of sexual harassment against the
petitioner.
6. The writ petition, therefore, so far as the relief with
respect to challenge to the Show Cause Notice dated
22.9.2016 is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid liberty
given to the respondents 2 to 4 to initiate appropriate
proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with the
relevant provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules and the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013."
2. It may be noted that an application seeking modification of the order
dated 20.12.2016 was filed which was partly allowed by an order
dated 15.02.2017. The order dated 15.02.2017 reads as under:-
"C.M. No.6145/2017 (for modification or order by
respondent nos.2 and 3)
1. This application is disposed of with the observation
that Internal Complaints Committee will not be
disciplinary authority but only an enquiry authority and
the disciplinary authority which is stated in para 4 of the
order dated 20.12.2016 in fact is a typing mistake and
the expression „disciplinary authority‟ in para 4 of the
order dated 20.12.2016 will be substituted by „enquiry
officer/enquiring authority‟. It is further stated that
entitlement of the respondent nos.2 and 3 is to put up the
report of the Internal Complaints Committee before the
disciplinary authority and as is envisaged by Section
13(3) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
2. C.M. stands disposed of in terms of aforesaid
observations."
3. Mr Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant
is aggrieved by the direction passed in paragraph 5 of the order dated
20.12.2016 as per which the Show Cause Notice dated 22.09.2016 is
to be withdrawn by the appellant herein (respondent before the
learned Single Judge) with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings
against the respondent with respect to the complaint of sexual
harassment. Mr Singh submits that once the direction contained in
paragraph 4 of this order has been modified and it is held that the
Chief Secretary is the disciplinary authority then there would be
requirement of issuance of a fresh Show Cause Notice as the earlier
Show Cause Notice was also issued by the Chief Secretary. Mr
Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, complains that the
respondent No. 1 has been under suspension since 05.07.2016, he is
sole earning member in his family. The complaints against him are
motivated, false and there is no merit in the same. Mr.Sharma also
submits that the matter is being unnecessarily delayed. The fact that
the Chief Secretary is the disciplinary authority is not in dispute.
Thus, we find no reason for the Show Cause Notice to be withdrawn.
Accordingly, the direction issued in paragraph 5 of the impugned
order dated 20.12.2016 is modified. The inquiry will be continued on
the basis of the Show Cause Notice of 22.09.2016. We direct the
Committee to conclude the inquiry within three months positively.
Mr.Sharma also submits that in the pending writ petition he would
make an application for early hearing.
4. In view of the above, the appeal and pending application are disposed
of
G.S.SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 31, 2018 / SU
