Delhi High Court
Avadhesh Kumar Singh vs India Oil Corporation Limited on 2 January, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: January 02, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 11711/2017 & C.M. 47505/2017
AVADHESH KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satyapal Singh, Advocate
Versus
INDIA OIL CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Vide impugned order of 6th September, 2016, petitioner's appeal
against the penalty of "reduction to lower grade" i.e. from Grade-"D" to
Grade-"C", stands dismissed while noting that there was a doubt about
authenticity of petitioner's e-mail complaint of 21st October, 2013, vide
which he had made a complaint against the complainant of not following
his oral instructions regarding doing the check of safety fittings on
mounded bullets area.
2. The Inquiry Officer vide his Report of 31st December, 2015
(Annexure P/14) has found petitioner guilty of indecent behavior towards
the complainant and has held that charge of sexual harassment against
petitioner stands proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide order of 16th
February, 2016 (Annexure P/16) has inflicted the penalty of reduction to a
lower grade i.e. from Grade-"D" to Grade-"C" on account of petitioner's
aforesaid misconduct.
3. The challenge to the penalty order and the appellate order by
learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that no opportunity of
hearing was granted to petitioner to challenge the findings of the Inquiry
Committee of 19th September, 2014 (Annexure P/8) and without affording
this opportunity to petitioner in terms of Section 18 of The Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013, petitioner was issued charge-sheet on 17th
November, 2014 (Annexure P/9). According to petitioner's counsel, the
aforesaid infirmity vitiates the entire proceedings and so, it is submitted
that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders as well as the
material on record, I find that petitioner had waived his right of appeal
against Inquiry Officer's Report of 19th September, 2014 (Annexure P/8)
and had participated in the regular inquiry after the charge-sheet
(Annexure P/9) was served upon him. Such a view is being taken because
petitioner's counsel was unable to respond to the Court query about the
Forum where the appeal under Section 18 of The Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013,
was maintainable. In any case, I find that petitioner's e-mail complaint of
21st October, 2013 has not been duly proved on record. Otherwise also, a
bare perusal of petitioner's complaint of 21 st October, 2013 (Annexure
P/1) reveals that the grievance of complainant was on account of not
providing cab and security to her. Even if it is assumed for assumption
sake that complainant was not doing the check of safety fittings on
mounded bullets area, then in the usual official course of duty, petitioner
ought to have given written instructions and not oral instructions. It is
evident from the contents of the complaint of 9th November, 2013
(Annexure P/2) of the complainant that her sexual harassment was not a
solitary instance but was repeated again.
5. Without dwelling upon the merits of the case, I find that the inquiry
against petitioner was not in violation of principles of natural justice nor
any procedural safeguards have been violated. During the course of
hearing, petitioner's counsel has sought to urge that the Medical Expert's
Report regarding petitioner's mental fitness was not supplied to him.
Nothing turns on it for the reason that the Inquiry Officer had not relied
upon the Medical Expert's Report regarding petitioner's mental condition
and has taken note of the fact that even petitioner has not denied the
instance of sexual harassment but had defended it by asserting that "galti
se lag gya hoga". In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no
infirmity in the impugned orders, as the penalty awarded to petitioner is
befitting the misconduct committed by him.
6. In view of aforesaid, I find no palpable error in the impugned
orders. This petition and application are accordingly dismissed.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 02, 2018
r
