Sexual harassment inquiry procedure: complaint may found the case, but findings beyond the complaint cannot sustain punishment.

Under the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, a sexual harassment complaint may serve as the basis of disciplinary inquiry, and the Complaints Committee can act as the inquiring authority without a separate formal charge-sheet. However, the inquiry must remain confined to the original complaint and follow a fair procedure consistent with natural justice. Where the Committee considers allegations beyond the complaint, formulates issues not traceable to it, or departs from prescribed procedure, the resulting disciplinary finding and penalty are unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a disciplinary proceeding relating to sexual harassment, the complaint could be treated as the charge-sheet and the Complaints Committee could proceed as the inquiring authority under the service rules; (ii) whether the inquiry and penalty were vitiated because the Committee travelled beyond the original complaint and departed from the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice.

Issue (i): Whether, in a disciplinary proceeding relating to sexual harassment, the complaint could be treated as the charge-sheet and the Complaints Committee could proceed as the inquiring authority under the service rules.

Analysis: The proviso to Rule 14(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 deems the Complaints Committee to be the inquiring authority in sexual harassment matters and requires the inquiry to be held as far as practicable in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In such matters, formal framing of a charge-sheet in the usual sense is not indispensable, and the complaint itself may serve as the foundation of the inquiry. The initiation of inquiry through the Complaints Committee was therefore not illegal merely because a separate formal charge-sheet had not been issued.

Conclusion: The proceeding could validly commence on the basis of the sexual harassment complaint and the complaint could be treated as the basis of inquiry.

Issue (ii): Whether the inquiry and penalty were vitiated because the Committee travelled beyond the original complaint and departed from the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice.

Analysis: The inquiry report showed that the Committee considered allegations substantially beyond the complaint dated 30.08.2011, including matters introduced later in a subsequent complaint, without proper entrustment. The Committee also formulated points not traceable to the original complaint, acted as examiner of witnesses, and did not follow a fair and certain procedure consistent with Rule 14 and the principles of natural justice. A disciplinary finding cannot rest on allegations outside the charge foundation, and the decision-making process was therefore defective. On judicial review, the Court found that the inquiry was not conducted fairly and the resulting penalty could not stand.

Conclusion: The inquiry was vitiated for breach of fair procedure and natural justice, and the penalty order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned penalty was quashed and the withheld pension was directed to be released, resulting in complete relief to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In sexual harassment disciplinary proceedings, the complaint may serve as the basis of inquiry under the deeming provision, but the inquiry must remain confined to the complaint and must conform to a fair procedure and the principles of natural justice; findings reached on matters beyond the charge foundation cannot sustain punishment.

---