Raj Shekhar Vyas vs Union Of India And Ors

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

The applicant is working as Additional Director General, Group-A Officer, in the office of Prasar Bharati, the 2nd respondent herein.

A complaint was lodged against him by a woman employee of the same organization alleging acts of sexual harassment. The complaint was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the 2nd respondent. Notice thereof was issued to the applicant. The ICC conducted a detailed enquiry wherein several witnesses were examined. A report was submitted by the ICC taking the view that though the charge of sexual harassment made against the applicant cannot be sustained due to lack of evidence, the circumstantial evidence is indicative of sexual overtures on the part of the applicant, which caused immense discomfort to the complainant. It is also mentioned that the applicant tried to approach the members of the Committee and had been sending representations to all the members, instead of sending it to the Chair. Ultimately, the committee referred the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to take action as it deems appropriate, against the applicant.

Taking into account, the report submitted by the ICC, the 2nd respondent herein, issued memorandum dated 11.01.2017 (Annexure A-1) proposing to conduct an enquiry into the charges which were mentioned in Annexure A-1 appended thereto. The said memo of charge is challenged in this OA on several grounds. The applicant has also challenged the Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service Rules published on 05.11.1990 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) on the ground that those Rules were framed by the 2nd respondent, and not as per the mandate of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India; and as such are not binding on him. However, during the course of hearing, not much was argued on this aspect.

The applicant contends that the allegations made against him are frivolous and concocted, and even the ICC found the same to be not proved. It is stated that according to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, where the enquiry is conducted by ICC, it shall be treated as a departmental enquiry itself, and in that view of the matter, there was no basis for initiating fresh set of proceedings through the impugned order.

The respondents filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that apart from recording its findings on the allegations as to sexual harassment, the ICC has made observations about the overtures and the acts of the applicant delaying the proceedings, and also trying to influence the members of the committee, and it was in this context that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated duly framing the charges. By referring to the judgments of the Hon"ble Supreme Court, the respondents contend that a charge memo cannot be interfered with unless extraordinary circumstances exist, and in the present case, the situation of that type did not arise.

We heard Shri Ashwani Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Sneha Verma, learned counsel for the respondents.

Though the Rules are challenged in the OA, that relief is not pressed. The actual challenge is to the charge memo contained in Annexure A-1. Three articles of charge are framed. They relate to the alleged acts of sexual harassment on the part of the applicant. Article III of the charge is in relation to the alleged obstruction caused by the applicant through proceedings.

Reliance is placed by learned counsel for the applicant on proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. He contends that wherever a complaint of sexual harassment is referred to ICC, it, i.e., ICC shall be deemed to be an Inquiring Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of these rules, and unless a different procedure is stipulated for the ICC for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassments, as far as practicable the inquiry shall be conducted in accordance with the procedure contained in the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It is pleaded that once the ICC has submitted a report, the same deserves to be treated as the report of the Inquiry Officer, and no further inquiry is warranted. The proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 reads as under:-

"[Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of Rule-3-C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Complaints Committee established in each Ministry of Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed to be the Inquiring Authority appointed by the Disciplinary Authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules."]

From the perusal of the above proviso, it is evident that the enquiry conducted by the ICC is treated on par with that of, an Inquiry Officer, and unless a different procedure is stipulated, the one under CCS (Conduct) Rules, needs to be followed by the ICC. Had it been a case where the present inquiry is into the complaint that was enquired into by the ICC, the contentions advanced on behalf of the applicant deserves to be accepted. However, apart from expressing its views and recording findings on the allegations of sexual harassment against the applicant, the ICC made certain comments about the obstruction, said to have been caused by the applicant, and attempts said to have been made by him to influence the members of committee, and indicated that the Disciplinary Authority has to take a proper action on that. It is obviously for that reason, the Disciplinary Authority issued the memo proposing to conduct an enquiry.

So far as the allegation as to sexual harassment is concerned, the matter needs to be taken as clinching, in terms of the report of the ICC. Even if, any reference is made to such allegations, the evidence or finding cannot be different from the one that forms a part of the record of the ICC. No fresh material can be introduced. The Inquiry Officer can take into account, other observations made by the ICC, as regards the alleged obstructions or attempts to influence the members of the committee.

We, therefore, dispose of the OA directing that:

(a) in the enquiry that is to be undertaken on the basis of impugned memo dated 11.01.2017, the findings recorded by the ICC on the allegations as to sexual harassment made against the applicant shall be read as final; and

(b) the further enquiry can be only in relation to the allegations of alleged obstructions caused by the applicant in the proceedings and his alleged attempt to influence the members of the committee.

(c) The applicant shall be supplied with all the material which the respondents intend to rely upon in relation to those allegations/charges.

There shall be no order as to costs.