[ad_1]
Delhi High Court
Ss Sehrawat vs Uoi And Ors on 24 April, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 21.01.2025
Pronounced on: 24.04.2025
+ W.P.(C) 2926/2011
SS SEHRAWAT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr.
Nilansh Gaur, Advs.
versus
UOI AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Ms.
Nippun Sharma, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
JUDGMENT
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
1. By way of the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner, who was serving as Unit
Commander at the Central Industrial Security Force (‘CISF’) Unit,
LPSC, Valiamala, Trivandrum, Kerala in the rank of Assistant
Commandant, has approached this Court seeking the following
reliefs:-
“a. To quash/set aside the Impugned Orders
dated 14/01/2010 by which a penalty of
Removal from service has been imposed and
order dated 24/06/2010 by which the petition
of the petitioner has been rejected by passing aSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 1 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
non-speaking order declaring as illegal,
unjust, arbitrary, and violative of principles of
natural justice, also declaring the punishment
of Removal from service is excessive, sever
and disproportionate and consequently the
petitioner may be entitled for re-instatement in
service with all consequential benefits
accruing there from.
b. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other
writ/directions/orders as may be deemed just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the case.
c. Award costs.”
Brief Facts
2. At the outset, the brief factual matrix, as emerging from the
record, may be noted.
3. The petitioner joined the CISF as an Assistant Sub-Inspector
(Executive) (‘ASI’) on 24.04.1976, and was thereafter promoted to the
rank of Sub-Inspector (‘SI’). He was further promoted to the rank of
Assistant Commandant on 13.03.2006.
4. In the year 2008, while serving as the Unit Commander at CISF
Unit, LPSC, Valiamala, Trivandrum, Kerala, an anonymous
complaint, filed by someone in the name of Ms. A (name not being
disclosed herein), was received against the petitioner, alleging sexual
harassment at the workplace.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents, without
verifying the contents of the anonymous complaint, constituted a
Complaint Committee to inquire into the charges leveled against the
petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 2 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
6. The Committee sought confirmation regarding the veracity of
the complaint from the complainant, who denied having authored the
two-page undated complaint, but nonetheless expressed her
willingness to depose before the Committee affirming that the
majority of the allegations made in the complaint were true.
7. The Committee, after a detailed inquiry involving the
examination of ten prosecution witnesses, the complainant, and
sixteen defense witnesses, submitted its report dated 27.01.2009. In its
findings, the Complaint Committee held that the charges of sexual
harassment against the petitioner stood proved.
8. Aggrieved by the findings of the Complaint Committee, the
petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 15.04.2009 against
the report of the Complaint Committee to the Disciplinary Authority,
challenging the inquiry report and seeking redressal.
9. The Disciplinary Authority, upon the advice received from the
UPSC, proceeded to impose a major penalty of ‘Removal from
Service’ upon the petitioner, vide the Order dated 14.01.2010.
10. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Disciplinary
Authority vide a petition dated 30.03.2010 addressed to the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, emphasizing the procedural irregularities in
the inquiry as well as on merits, that is, the evidence examined by the
Disciplinary Authority.
11. The said petition was rejected by the Competent Authority by
an Order dated 24.06.2010, being devoid of merit.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 3 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
12. Discontented by the rejection of his Statutory Petition, the
petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present petition.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
13. Mr. Shankar Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
contends that the Orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the
Competent Authority were against the principles of natural justice as
they failed to record any reason for the imposition of such a major
penalty on the petitioner.
14. The learned counsel submitted that in the present case, not only
were the principles of natural justice violated, but the evidence on
record is also not legally acceptable.
15. The learned counsel pointed out that the petitioner was not
granted a fair opportunity to defend himself as a Defence Assistance,
who could have facilitated him in his defence, was not provided,
though mandated by the Circular issued by the DG, CISF dated
15.01.2006 and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 [‘CCS (CCA) Rules’].
16. The learned counsel further submitted that even a copy of the
complaint was not furnished to the petitioner prior to the initiation of
the proceedings. He submitted that it was only during the course of the
Preliminary Hearing, that the complaint was made available to him.
17. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
procedure adopted by the Complaints Committee was fundamentally
incorrect. While conceding that the strict provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 may not be applicable to departmental
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 4 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
proceedings, he submitted that the inquiry must nevertheless adhere to
the foundational principles of natural justice. Placing reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab
National Bank & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 570, he contended that the
findings of the disciplinary authority must be based on some evidence
that is legally admissible.
18. He contended that the Committee’s formation itself became
void, and that the Committee should have been prevented from
proceeding, as the complainant during her cross-examination,
explicitly denied having written any complaint against the petitioner.
Thus, the very basis of constituting the Committee was bad in law.
19. He further submitted that the Complaint Committee acted in a
pre-determined manner, failed to appreciate the evidence on record,
and has taken into consideration extraneous matters, and proceeded
under their assumption.
20. Moreover, he submitted that a copy of the Advice issued by the
UPSC was not provided to the petitioner, which is a mandatory
requirement before imposing a major penalty. Reliance in this regard
was placed on Union of India & Ors. v. R.P. Singh,(2014) 7 SCC
340.
21. The learned counsel submitted that reasons are also to be given
for rejecting the representation/appeal of the employee, which has not
been done in the impugned order.
22. He, concluding his submissions, submitted that penalty awarded
is disproportionate to the charge as proved against the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 5 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
23. Ms. Anjana Gosain, the learned counsel for the respondents,
while negating the submissions of the petitioner, urged that on
25.02.2008, during an inspection conducted by the Deputy Inspector
General (‘DIG’), the complainant had reported sexual harassment
caused to her by the petitioner. She submitted that based on her
complaint, a preliminary enquiry was conducted, wherein it was prima
facie established that the petitioner had harassed the complainant by
making telephone calls to her personal mobile phone from his office
and residence.
24. She submitted that pursuant thereto, a Complaint Committee
held a detailed enquiry into the allegations. The Committee, after
examining the witnesses and affording the petitioner ample
opportunity to defend himself, arrived at its findings that the charges
against the petitioner had been substantiated.
25. The learned counsel further submitted that the UPSC
meticulously reviewed the records of the case, including the
proceedings conducted by the Complaint Committee, and duly
advised the respondents about the punishment to be awarded. The
Disciplinary Authority, after taking into account the advice tendered
by the UPSC, imposed the appropriate penalty on the petitioner. The
process was conducted in accordance with the applicable legal and
procedural framework, ensuring fairness and due process. More so,
the Competent Authority duly considered the Statutory Petition of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 6 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
petitioner based on the available evidence, thereby upholding the
findings of the Disciplinary Authority.
26. According to the respondents, there is no merit in the petition.
Analysis and Findings
27. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully
considering the same, and upon a perusal of the record, it is apposite
to note that the petitioner has assailed the Impugned Order of
dismissal not only on merits, but also on the ground of violation of the
principles of natural justice, thereby leading to serious procedural
lapses.
28. On merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the complainant herself is an unreliable witness. During her cross-
examination, the complainant stated that she had neither signed nor
sent the complaint on the basis of which the Complaints Committee
was constituted. Upon further questioning, she admitted that she had
not even read the contents of the said complaint. The learned counsel
contended that the discrepancies in the complainant’s deposition cast a
serious doubt on the veracity of her statement and indicate that the
allegations were false.
29. He further submitted that although the complainant concurred
with most parts of the complaint during her testimony, she denied the
allegation that the petitioner used to make telephonic calls to her.
Despite this denial, the Complaints Committee, without adverting to
this material aspect of the evidence, proceeded to return a finding that
the petitioner had made such calls to the complainant.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 7 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
30. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
complainant’s deposition to the effect that she was harassed while
being detailed as an office orderly under the petitioner, stands
contradicted by the testimony of SI P.C. Sharma, who deposed that the
complainant was neither deployed in the office nor for orderly duties.
31. It was also submitted that the complainant had alleged that in
order to harass her, she was made to perform runner duties, however,
in this regard, the learned counsel submitted that in the statement
made by both SI K.P. Soman and SI R.M. Nair, they had stated that
they had never seen the complainant being assigned or perform any
such runner duties. The learned counsel also pointed out several other
inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence led during the
inquiry, which, according to him, cumulatively undermine the
credibility of the complainant’s version and render the findings of the
Complaints Committee untenable.
32. We may begin by noting the settled position of law, which is
that this Court, in exercise of the power of judicial review in matters
arising out of disciplinary proceedings, has a limited scope. This Court
does not sit in appeal over the findings of the Disciplinary Authority,
nor is it empowered to re-appreciate or reassess the evidence led in the
inquiry. The Court may interfere only where it is shown that the
decision-making process is vitiated by a patent error of law,
procedural irregularity, or a manifest violation of the principles of
natural justice, as is alleged to be the position in the present case.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 8 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
33. With regards to the violation of principles of natural justice, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Complaints
Committee acted in violation of not only the procedural safeguards
contained in the CCS (CCA) Rules, but also of the Circular issued by
the Director General, CISF, dated 15.01.2006. Paragraph 7(viii) of the
said Circular clearly stipulates that while no Presenting Officer is to
be appointed, a Defence Assistant has to be provided to the delinquent
official, and that the remaining inquiry proceedings are to be
conducted in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules. It was contended
that in complete disregard of these provisions, the Committee failed to
provide the petitioner with a Defence Assistant during the course of
the inquiry. This, it was submitted, constitutes a clear violation of the
principles of natural justice and vitiates the proceedings.
34. Refuting the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for the
respondents contended that there is no material on record to suggest
that the petitioner had, at any stage, made a request for the
appointment of a Defence Assistant. Consequently, there was no
occasion for the Chairperson of the Complaints Committee to consider
or reject the same. It was further submitted that had the petitioner
sought the assistance of a Defence Assistant, the Complaints
Committee, in accordance with the applicable rules, would have duly
provided the same.
35. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note the decision of a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Balwan Singh v. Union of India &
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 9 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
Ors.,2013 SCC OnLine Del 3165, the relevant extract of which is
reproduced as under:
“19. So far as the appointment of a defence
assistant is concerned, it has been repeatedly
held that the delinquent in disciplinary
proceedings is required to be informed of his
right to take help of another Government
Servant before the commencement of the
inquiry and a fair and reasonable opportunity
to appoint one. …”
36. This view was further reiterated by another Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Shyamvir Singh Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors.,
2024 SCC OnLine Del 5512, wherein it was held that the principles of
natural justice require that a delinquent employee is informed of his
right to seek the assistance of a defence representative during the
course of an inquiry.
37. In the present case, there is a clear violation of not only
paragraph 7(viii) of the aforesaid Circular but also of the fundamental
principles of natural justice. It is well-settled that it is incumbent upon
the Disciplinary Authority or, as in this case, the Complaint
Committee to inform the charged official about his right to be assisted
by a Defence Assistant during the course of the inquiry. Non-
compliance with this mandatory safeguard, as envisaged under the
said Circular as also the principles of natural justice, vitiates the
inquiry proceedings.
38. Another submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner was that a copy of the complaint forming the basis of the
inquiry was not furnished to him prior to the initiation of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 10 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
proceedings. It was contended that the complaint was made available
to him only during the course of the Preliminary Hearing, thereby
depriving him of an adequate opportunity to prepare his defence.
39. In response thereto, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that upon receipt of the Complaint, the Complaints
Committee was duly constituted in accordance with the Vishaka
guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court. It was further submitted
that, as per the procedure prescribed in the said Circular, the
Chairperson of the Complaint Committee is required, during the
Preliminary Hearing, to provide the alleged officer with the gist of the
complaint. In the present case, however, instead of furnishing the gist
of the allegations, a copy of the complaint was supplied to the
petitioner. Thus, it was submitted, there was no violation of the
principles of natural justice.
40. The record indicates that a Board comprising of a Chairperson
and 3 members initiated the inquiry against the petitioner on
08.07.2008. The petitioner was furnished a copy of the complaint on
the same day, and was given some time to read the complaint and
thereafter, the statement of the complainant was recorded on the same
day itself. The petitioner cross-examined the complainant on
10.07.2008. During the inquiry, 10 prosecution witnesses and 16
defence witnesses were examined. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was not
furnished a copy of the complaint or a copy of the list of witnesses
before the inquiry commenced, thus, not making him adequately
equipped with his defence in the inquiry proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 11 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
41. The learned counsel for the petitioner further brought to the
notice of this Court, the Office Memorandum dated 14.07.2016, to
submit that before the petitioner could be heard on the punishment
awarded, a copy of the advice of the UPSC, as relied upon by the
Disciplinary Authority, must have been supplied to him in advance. In
the absence of the same, he could not have defended himself on the
question of the punishment, resulting in his dismissal from the service.
42. To appreciate the plea of the petitioner that non-supply of the
copy of the advice of the UPSC has further violated the principles of
natural justice, it would be apposite to refer to the said OM, which is
reproduced herein below:
“Undersigned is directed to refer to the
Department of Personnel and Training OM
No. F. No. 11012/8/2011-Estt.(A) dated the 19th
November, 2014 on the above subject and to
say that Hon’ble Supreme Court had in Union
Of India &Ors vs S.K. Kapoor, 2011 (4) SCC
589 decided that where the advice of the
Union Public Service Commission is relied
upon by the Disciplinary Authority, then a
copy of the same must be supplied in advance
to the concerned employee.
3. Representations received from
Government servants against penalty in such
cases may be dealt with in the following
manner. Cases decided before the date of this
judgement, i.e., 16th March, 2011 need not be
reopened. In cases decided after 16th March
2011, where a penalty was imposed after
relying upon the advice of UPSC, but where a
copy of such advice was not given to the
Charged Officer before the decision, the
penalty may be set aside and inquiry taken up
from the stage of supply of copy of the advice
of UPSC.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 12 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
43. We may note that at the relevant time when the punishment was
imposed, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. T.V.
Patel, (2007) 4 SCC 785, was holding the field, which had held that it
is not necessary to supply the copy of the advice tendered by the
UPSC/PSC to the Delinquent Officer before imposing the penalty. The
judgment of the Supreme Court in T.V. Patel (supra) was, however,
held to be per incuriam by the subsequent judgment of the Supreme
Court in Union of India v. S.K. Kapoor, (2011) 4 SCC 589, and also
in R.P. Singh (supra). It is for this reason that that OM dated
14.07.2016, relied upon by the petitioner himself, states that cases
decided prior to the judgment in S.K. Kapoor (supra) need not be
reopened.
44. In the present case, therefore, it was not mandatory for a copy
of the advice received from the UPSC to have been supplied to the
petitioner prior to the passing of the Impugned Orders in order to give
the petitioner an opportunity to make submissions against the
proposed penalty before it was formally imposed. Nonetheless, the
same would have been the more appropriate approach; to have
provided the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard prior to
imposition of the major penalty of dismissal from service.
45. In view of the above, we find that there has been violation of
the principles of natural justice, however, we would not delve deeper
into the merits of the submissions raised by the petitioner, specifically
as the petitioner would have superannuated in the year 2014 if he was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 13 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
not removed from service with effect from 14.01.2010, and a period of
over fifteen years has elapsed since then.
46. Therefore, another important issue that now requires
determination is whether the petitioner can, at this stage, be directed to
be re-instated in service by the respondents.
47. Generally, upon setting aside of the Impugned Order, the relief
of reinstatement would have followed, else, the order would be
quashed and the matter would be remanded back to the concerned
authority for a de novo inquiry. In the facts of the present case,
however, such an approach, would serve no purpose. In the instant
case, because of the long time lag and other supervening
circumstances, coupled with the fact that the past record of the
petitioner remained unblemished except for a ‘warning’ being issued
to him in the year 1991, it would be unfair and harsh to direct a fresh
inquiry or for a fresh order to be passed by the Competent Authority.
More importantly, the petitioner has made subsequent prayers vide
written synopsis dated 04.04.2024, which are as under:
“1. Convert the penalty of removal to
compulsory retirement with retiral benefits as
penalty being excess and disproportionate
after 34 years service of the Petitioner.
2. Compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/- inclusive
of leave encashment.
3. Quash the D.A & A.A orders and treat the
Petitioner as deemed suspended from
14.01.2010 to 2014 with arrears with liberty to
the petitioner to represent against UPSC
advice and thereafter D.A to pass fresh order
as per CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 14 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
48. From a reading of the above, what emerges is that the petitioner
would be satisfied if the penalty of ‘Removal from Service’ is
converted to that of the ‘Compulsory Retirement’ with all due retiral
benefits accruing to him.
49. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our view,
the ends of justice will, therefore, would be met by directing that the
petitioner be treated to be in service till 14.01.2010, after which he
will stand compulsorily retired from 14.01.2010, with full pensionary
benefits. This course of action is also acceptable to the petitioner, as is
evident from his written synopsis dated 04.04.2024. Let the exercise
in terms of this order be carried out within a period of 8 weeks.
50. As far as the alternate prayer of the petitioner for award of
compensation, in the facts of the present case, where the Impugned
Order is being set aside only because of the technical infractions by
the respondent in the inquiry proceedings, we do find any merit in the
same. The same is accordingly rejected.
51. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SHALINDER KAUR, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
APRIL 24, 2025/kp/sk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 2926/2011 Page 15 of 15
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:24.04.2025
18:17:42
[ad_2]
Source link