AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Gaur, J
Recommendations of Internal Complaints Committee of first respondent rendered on 23rd September, 2016 are assailed in this petition on the ground that the complaint of sexual harassment lodged against petitioner who was then Deputy Registrar to the Information Commissioner is a counterblast to petitioner’s prior complaint against the complainant. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that against the impugned recommendations (Annexure P-16), petitioner had filed a representation on 17th November, 2016 which stands declined vide impugned order (Annexure P-17) on 1st December, 2016.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the recommendations (Annexure P-16), I find that rejection of petitioner’s representation is by a cryptic order. No doubt, the recommendations do not have any statutory basis but it certainly casts a stigma upon petitioner and so respondent is required to re-consider petitioner’s representation of 17th November, 2016 and is directed to pass a speaking order thereon within a period of four weeks and the fate of this representation be conveyed to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if need be.
With aforesaid directions, this petition and the application are disposed of.