Delhi High Court
J vs Union Of India And Ors on 20 August, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~100
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11219/2021
J1 .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, CGSC
with Mr. Madhav Bajaj and Ms. Katyayani
Joshi, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 20.08.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. On 19 May 2017, the petitioner, who was a wrestler, made a
complaint before the respondent against her coach, Mahavir Prasad,
alleging sexual harassment. Following the said complaint, the
respondent constituted an Internal Complaints Committee2 in
accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishakha v
State of Rajasthan3, under the chairpersonship of one Ms. Nidhi
Singh, to look into the complaint.
2. The first ICC arrived at a finding that the complaint was false.
1 Anonymized in view of Section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013
2 "the first ICC" hereinafter
3 (1997) 6 SCC 241
W.P.(C) 11219/2021
Based thereon, the petitioner was visited with a charge sheet dated 21
September 2017 proposing to impose penalty on her for having
levelled false allegations against Mahavir Prasad. That charge sheet
came to be withdrawn on 12 March 2020.
3. In the interregnum, on 20 April 2018, a second ICC was
constituted by the respondent to re-examine the petitioner's complaint,
under the chairpersonship, this time, of one Ms. Navneet Kaur. Mr.
Nikhil Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was never informed of the constitution of the second ICC,
and was never involved in the proceedings of the second ICC. It is
necessary, in this context, to reproduce the assertion to this effect as
contained in para 34 of the writ petition and the reply of the
respondent thereto, thus:
Para 34 of the Writ Petition
"34. That no intimation whatsoever regarding constitution of 2nd
Sexual Harassment Committee was given to petitioner. Further
petitioner was not given any opportunity to put her defence/plea
before second Sexual Harassment Committee. And without even
calling petitioner or any other witnesses, 2nd Sexual Harassment
Committee opined that charges levelled against the coach stands
unproved and held, both petitioner and her coach are liable to be
proceeded for not maintaining the dignity of their post.
That till today it is a dilemma whether 2nd Sexual Harassment
Committee conducted investigation de Novo, or proceeded further
from where 1st Sexual Harassment Committee left its investigation
or initiated investigation from somewhere in between."
Reply of the Respondent to Para 34 of the Writ Petition
"34. That in reply to Para no. 34 it is submitted that Ms. Navneet
Kaur, DC/LR was appointed as Chairperson in place of Ms. Nidhi
Singh, AC. Since, the statements of all the concerned personnel
were available in the file and hence the enquiry proceeded further.
W.P.(C) 11219/2021
Therefore, Ms. Navneet Kaur, DC/LR completed the preliminary
enquiry as well as rectified the observations and re-submitted
report to higher formation, which was finally accepted by the
Competent Authority. A copy of the aforesaid report was supplied
to the petitioner vide letter No.24792-(E) dated 20.07.2020 under
proper receipt. Hence, the question for conducting second enquiry
on the complaint of the petitioner does not arise.
4. Thus, the respondent has not denied the assertion, in para 34 of
the writ petition, that the petitioner was in fact never informed of the
constitution of the second ICC and was never involved in the
proceedings by the second ICC.
5. The second ICC also arrived at a finding that the complaint of
the petitioner was false.
6. Based on the said finding, the petitioner was visited with a
second charge sheet dated 8 June 2020 issued by the Assistant
Commandant as a Disciplinary Authority, proposing to take
disciplinary action against her for having levelled false allegations
against Mahavir Prasad. The translated copy of the second charge
copy reads thus:
"MEMORANDUM
Force Number: ***** Rank/Position: Woman Constable / GD -
***** Unit: IVF RT Composite Coy, CGBS, New Delhi You are
hereby informed that it is proposed to initiate disciplinary
proceedings against you under Rule 37 of the BSF Rules, 2001.
The details of the allegation against you are as follows:
Article of Charge:
While serving in IVFRT Composite Coy, Force Number *****,
Woman Constable / GD ***** lodged a written complaint of
sexual harassment in May 2017 against Inspector / Works -
W.P.(C) 11219/2021
Mahavir Prasad (Wrestling Team Coach) during your attachment at
BSF Unit IPCGCL, New Delhi. A committee was constituted to
investigate the complaint. The inquiry committee concluded that
the complaint of sexual harassment made against Inspector / Works
- Mahavir Prasad (Wrestling Team Coach) was not substantiated.
The committee also recommended that appropriate disciplinary
action be taken against both Inspector / Works - Mahavir Prasad
and Woman Constable / GD *****. Being a member of an armed
and disciplined force, the act committed by you displays
indiscipline. Hence, the charge is leveled.
02. You, Force Number *****, Woman Constable / GD *****,
IVFRT Composite Coy, CGBS, New Delhi, are hereby given an
opportunity to submit a written representation in your defense
regarding this memorandum.
03. If your written representation is not received within 10 days
from the date of receipt of this memorandum, it will be presumed
that you do not wish to respond, and a unilateral final order will be
passed against you.
04. Acknowledgment of this memorandum must be ensured.
Assistant Commandant / GBS
IVF RT Company, New Delhi
To: Force Number ***** Woman Constable / GD
***** IVFRT Composite Coy,
CGBS, New Delhi
Through: Company Commander,
IVF RT Company, New Delhi"
7. Clearly, therefore, the second charge sheet was premised on the
report of the second ICC, no copy of which was provided to the
petitioner.
8. On the ground that Rule 374 of the Central Industrial Security
4 37. Procedure for imposing minor penalties -
(1) No order imposing any of minor penalties specified in rule 34 shall be made except after
W.P.(C) 11219/2021
Force Rules, 20015 did not mandate the holding of an enquiry where
the penalty proposed was minor, no enquiry was held against the
petitioner qua the second charge sheet. By order dated 22 June 2020,
however, the petitioner was visited with a minor penalty of
withholding of an increment for one year without cumulative effect.
9. The petitioner challenged the said decision by way of appeal
and review, unsuccessfully.
10. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.
11. We have heard Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Ms. Shiva Lakshmi, learned CGSC for the respondents
at length.
12. Though Mr. Bhardwaj also attempted to argue on the aspect of
sexual harassment, we do not deem it necessary to enter into the said
quagmire. The facts are clear.
13. Para 34 of the writ petition, juxtaposed with the corresponding
paragraph of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents' makes it
clear that the petitioner was never allowed to participate in the
-
(a) informing the enrolled member in writing of the imputations of misconduct or
misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and giving him a reasonable opportunity
of making such representation as he wishes to make against the proposal;
(b) holding an inquiry, if the disciplinary authority so desires, in the manner laid
down in sub-rules (3) to (22) of rule 36;
(c) taking the representation, if any submitted by the enrolled member under clause
(a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration; and
(d) recording the findings on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour;
5 "the CISF Rules" hereinafter
W.P.(C) 11219/2021
proceedings of the second ICC and was never provided any copy of
the report of the second ICC, despite the fact that it was the said report
which constituted the entire basis of the second charge sheet dated 8
June 2020. As no enquiry was held following the second charge sheet,
the petitioner effectively got no opportunity whatsoever to respond to
the allegations on the basis of which she was ultimately visited with
the punishment.
14. It was only after the punishment was awarded on 22 June 2020,
the petitioner was provided a copy of the second ICC report on 20
July 2020. Needless to say, the providing of second ICC report, at that
stage, was a complete futility, and of no purpose whatsoever. The
petitioner was effectively presented with a fait accompli.
15. The entire proceedings in this case have, therefore, been
conducted in abject violation of the principles of natural justice and
fair play.
16. The respondent was duty bound to provide, to the petitioner, a
copy of the second ICC report. Having not done so, and having failed
to hold any enquiry thereafter, so that the petitioner was given no
opportunity to defend the allegation against her in the second charge
sheet, we are of the considered opinion that the order dated 22 June
2020 imposing punishment on the petitioner cannot sustain in law or
on facts.
17. Accordingly, without entering into any other aspect of the
W.P.(C) 11219/2021
matter, we quash and set aside the order dated 22 June 2020, imposing
punishment on the petitioner as well as the orders dated 19 August
2020 and 17 March 2021 whereby the appeal and revision
successively preferred by the petitioner thereagainst were dismissed.
Consequential reliefs to the petitioner would follow.
18. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent with no
orders to costs.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J
AUGUST 20, 2025
AR
W.P.(C) 11219/2021
