Praveen Bhatt vs Union Of India And Others

MA 3311/2019

This isanapplication filed by the applicant seeking clarification/modification of an order dated 27th November, 2019 passed by this Tribunal in

While dismissing the OA filed by the applicant, wherein he has sought review of his Annual Confidential Reports for the period 2008 to 2017 and

also sought review of the Selection Board's proceedings in the matter of considering his case for promotion to the next higher post, certain references

were made in the order with respect to proceedings initiated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013') and the judgment rendered by us on 27th November, 2019 contains reference to these proceedings

and some orders passed when the matter was taken up by the Internal Complaints Committee under the Act of 2013. It is the case of the applicant

now in this application that the observations made, as detailed in the application, have adverse effect on the applicant's reputation and their reference

is impermissible in these proceedings in view of the bar contained in Chapter V, Section 16 of the Act of 2013, accordingly seeking expunging of the

references to such proceedings, this application has been filed. In particular the applicant has made reference to the following references made in the

proceedings:

With regard to the 'censure' awarded on 03.02.2015 to him by the second respondent (CAS), in a sexual harassment case, while he was

posted at HQ Eastern Air Command, learned counsel contends that the censure was based on a motivated false complaint and its validity

was in effect for only two years and thus could not have been taken into consideration by the Special Promotion Board, which was held on

03.01.2018. The learned counsel has argued that, if indeed the applicant's character, integrity or moral fiber was in question, why was it

not reflected accordingly in his AR of 2014. The learned counsel contends that absence of any adverse comments in subsequent ARs and

endorsement of exceptional high gradings therein is a reflection of the fact that his reporting officers endorsed his 'impeccable integrity and

character' and held that he was falsely implicated.

The applicant had tendered an apology to the female complainant but the apology should not have been construed as an admission of guilt

but as an act of fgenerosily or empathy' to repair a damaged work relationship.

xx xx xx

In the case of the applicant, learned Sr. CGSC pointed out that he was awarded 'censure of severe displeasure for 24 months' by the

CAS on 03.02.2015 consequent to the show cause notice dated 13.01.2015 issued to him for inappropriate behavior and harassment at

work place of a woman Stenographer, after due investigation of the complaint by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), wherein the

applicant expressed his consent for conciliation and tendered unconditional apology for the alleged misconduct. The Board members of

SF'B-2018 had assessed all the Air officers considered.

Learned counsel invited our attention to Section 16 of the Act of 2013 and tried to argue that in spite of the provisions of the Right to Information

Act, the contents of an application made under Section 9, the identity and addresses of the aggrieved woman, respondent and witnesses, any

information relating to conciliation and inquiry proceedings, recommendation of the Internal Committee or Local Committee and the action taken by

the employer or the District Officer under the provisions of the Act of 2013 shall not be published, communicated or made known to public, press and

media in any manner whatsoever. The argument is that by making references to these proceedings in the order in question, provisions of Section 16

are violated.

Having considered the rival contentions and having bestowed our anxious consideration, we are of the considered view that the application is totally

misconceived and the interpretation of Section 16, as canvassed by the applicant, is not appropriate. The applicant has challenged the entries made in

his confidential reports, namely, adverse remarks for the year 2014 and the act of denying him promotion. While dealing with the issue, it was brought

on record that a complaint was filed against the applicant and reference has been made to an apology tendered by him before the Internal Complaints

Committee and the reasons which weighed with the Selection Committee in rejecting the claim of the applicant.

The reference made to the proceedings held under the Act of 2013 does not deal with the merits of the complaint. It does not indicate the contents

of the complaint; neither any name, nor particulars or anything is revealed. The references made are only the averments contained in the pleadings

produced before us and the action taken after the proceedings were held in the Internal Complaints Committee. We do not find anything in the order

which would cause any prejudice, bias or in any way harm the reputation or interest of the applicant. They are only observations of facts as they came

on record, neither derogative nor adverse to the interest of the applicant in any manner whatsoever. The averments were justification given by the

respondents for awarding censure to the applicant on 3rd February 2015 and the proceedings that were held before the Selection Committee. In our

considered view, they are nothing but part of the material available on record and we see no reason to remove them from the order. That apart,-the

contention of the applicant that Section 16 of the Act of 2013 prohibits consideration of the same is wholly misconceived. Section 16 contained in

Chapter V of the Act of 2013 deals with the manner in which a complaint received under the Act, is to be dealt with and inquiry conducted and while

dealing with these aspects of the matter the law under Section 16 contemplates that in spite of the Right to Information Act, 2005 the contents of a

complaint made under Section 9, identity and addresses of the persons mentioned therein and any information relating to conciliation and inquiry

proceedings or even the recommendations made in such proceedings by various committees and the action taken by the employer or by any statutory

authority shall not be published, communicated or made known to the public by means of press or media in any manner whatsoever. What is prohibited

under this section is publication of the material information as indicated in the section and its knowledge being brought in the public domain by the

press or media while the proceedings are held under the Act of 2013. The section neither contemplates nor does it prohibit consideration of the

material in the manner provided under the law in a judicial proceeding, particularly when- the issue involved in the judicial proceedings warrants taking

note of the proceedings held as was the question in the present case. 6.

Accordingly, we find no reason to entertain This application and the same is dismissed.