2016 (4) TMI 1483 - HC - Indian Laws

Disciplinary memorandum quashed and removal order set aside for procedural committee-composition breaches; petitioner reinstated with costs and benefits

HC quashed the disciplinary memorandum and set aside the removal order, finding procedural violations in constituting the Complaints Committee and failure ... Sexual Harassment - constitution of the internal enquiry/Complaints Committee under Sub-rule 25(c) of Rule 3(c) (Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of Working Women) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules - Seeking to quash the memorandum - seeking direction to conduct denova proceedings by competent members - imposition of major penalty of 'removal from service' u/r 5(1) of the Recruitment and Service Rules of the Institute read with Rule 11(viii) of CCS (CC& A) Rules, 1965 - HELD THAT:- It is always necessary that disciplinary authorities should first satisfy themselves that the alleged acts of misconduct do not attract the provisions of any specific rule before taking recourse to Rule 3 (1) on grounds of unbecoming conduct, special care should be taken to eliminate cases of a trivial nature. Again the rule says that supervisory officers should look into the matter during periodic inspections and ensure that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 3(1) are not initiated on grounds which are unjustified. Since the disciplinary authority has completely given a go-by to sub rule 24 of Rule 3(c), the impugned order clearly shows that the respondents 2 and 3 have acted with an ulterior motive to punish the petitioner for no wrong, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. When Sub-rule 25(c) clearly shows that the Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its members should be women, in the present case, Dr. A. Kalanidhi, former Vice Chancellor has been made as the Chairman in violation of the above Rule - Since the petitioner, who was serving as Associate Professor of NITTR, Tharamani, Chennai has been unceremoniously removed by the second respondent, for the unknown reasons, as a result the petitioner and his family have been put to grave prejudice, this Court is inclined to impose costs of Rs. 25,000/- payable by the second respondent to the petitioner. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the constitution of the internal enquiry/Complaints Committee complied with Sub-rule 25(c) of Rule 3(c) (Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of Working Women) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, requiring the Complaints Committee to be headed by a woman and for not less than half of its members to be women, and to involve an external third party. 2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of the major penalty of removal were vitiated for breach of principles of natural justice, specifically: (a) issuance of a charge memo calling for explanation; (b) furnishing of the enquiry report and opportunity to submit explanation to the disciplinary authority; and (c) holding enquiry despite the complainant's written denial of sexual harassment and a judicial interim stay on constitution of the committee. 3. Whether the disciplinary authority improperly invoked disciplinary rules (including Rule 3(1)/Rule 3-C framework) without first applying Sub-rule 24 of Rule 3(c) to eliminate cases of a trivial nature before proceeding under rules dealing with unbecoming conduct. 4. Appropriate remedy and consequences upon finding procedural illegality in the enquiry and disciplinary order. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of Committee Constitution under Sub-rule 25(c) of Rule 3(c) Legal framework: Sub-rule 25(c) of Rule 3(c) (Prohibition of Sexual Harassment of Working Women) prescribes that the Complaints Committee shall be headed by a woman, not less than half of its members should be women, and, to prevent undue influence, such Complaints Committee should involve a third party (NGO or other body) familiar with the issue of sexual harassment. Precedent treatment: No prior authority was invoked or applied by the Tribunal/Court in the judgment; the Court applied the statutory text directly. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the membership of the committee constituted by the disciplinary authority and found the chairperson to be a male former Vice-Chancellor, with a composition not satisfying the numerical and gender requirements of Sub-rule 25(c). The rule's mandatory language ('should be headed by a woman' and 'not less than half') was applied literally; the absence of a third-party representative and the male chair were held to be non-compliant. The Court concluded that the Committee's constitution was in gross violation of the specific statutory prescription, undermining the legitimacy of the enquiry it conducted. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Constitution of the Complaints Committee contrary to the express requirements of Sub-rule 25(c) vitiates the enquiry conducted by that Committee. Conclusion: The Committee was improperly constituted in violation of Sub-rule 25(c), rendering its proceedings and report legally infirm. Issue 2 - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice (charge memo, supply of report, proceeding despite complainant denial and court stay) Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that a charged employee be issued a definite charge memo calling for explanation, be supplied copies of the enquiry report and given an opportunity to submit explanation before an adverse disciplinary order is passed. Additionally, domestic or administrative enquiry procedures under CCS rules must respect preliminary inquiries and any judicial stay. Precedent treatment: No earlier decisions were relied upon; the Court applied established principles of natural justice and statutory procedure. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court found (and the respondents conceded) that no charge memo framing charges was issued; the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner; and no opportunity was given to submit explanations to the disciplinary authority prior to imposition of removal. Further, the complainant had written (22.9.2010) explicitly denying any sexual harassment and requesting no further action; nonetheless the enquiry proceeded and ultimately an adverse finding was adopted. The Court also noted that an interim order staying the operation of the enquiry committee had been granted by the Court yet the enquiry continued. The cumulative effect demonstrated a blatant violation of audi alteram partem and procedural safeguards, and indicated that the disciplinary authority proceeded hastily and without requisite procedural fairness. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Failure to issue charge memo, failure to furnish the enquiry report and failure to afford opportunity to explain are fatal to the disciplinary order; carrying on with enquiry despite complainant's written denial and an interim stay is a separate, independent ground to quash the order. Conclusion: The disciplinary proceedings and the consequential order of removal are vitiated for multiple breaches of natural justice and for proceeding despite the complainant's denial and judicial interim stay; the order is therefore liable to be set aside. Issue 3 - Application of Sub-rule 24 (elimination of trivial cases) and improper resort to Rule 3(1)/unbecoming conduct Legal framework: Sub-rule 24 of Rule 3-C mandates that disciplinary authorities should first satisfy themselves that alleged acts do not attract specific rule provisions before resorting to Rule 3(1) on grounds of unbecoming conduct, and that cases of trivial nature should be eliminated to avoid unjustified disciplinary proceedings. Precedent treatment: None cited; the Court applied the rule text to the facts. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the complainant's initial letters described 'verbal assault' and expressly denied sexual harassment, and that no substantive evidence was produced at enquiry. Given this, the Court held the matter fell within the ambit of trivial or non-sexual quarrel that ought to have been screened out under Sub-rule 24 before invoking more serious disciplinary provisions. The disciplinary authority's failure to perform this screening was characterized as acting with ulterior motive and as an additional illegality. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Failure to apply Sub-rule 24 to filter out trivial matters before initiating serious disciplinary action renders the proceeding and any consequent punitive order unsustainable. Conclusion: The disciplinary authority ought to have applied Sub-rule 24 to eliminate a trivial matter and not proceeded to invoke severe disciplinary sanctions; the failure to do so adds to the invalidity of the removal order. Issue 4 - Remedy: Quashing of removal order, reinstatement, and costs Legal framework: Where disciplinary proceedings are vitiated by procedural illegality and breach of natural justice, the appropriate relief ordinarily includes quashing the punitive order, reinstatement with consequential benefits where removal was unlawful, and imposition of costs where the authority's conduct has caused prejudice. Precedent treatment: None referenced; the Court exercised equitable and remedial powers in judicial review of administrative action. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the multiple fatal infirmities identified - improper committee constitution, failure to follow natural justice, disregard of complainant's denial and court stay, and failure to apply Sub-rule 24 - the Court concluded the removal order was wholly unwarranted. Considering prejudice caused to the petitioner and family by the unlawful removal, the Court ordered reinstatement with all consequential benefits within a specified period and imposed quantified costs payable by the disciplinary authority. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where a major penalty is imposed following proceedings that violate both specific statutory requirements and fundamental rules of natural justice, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the penalty, order reinstatement with consequential benefits, and, if warranted, award costs against the authority. Conclusion: The removal order was set aside; the petitioner was to be reinstated with consequential benefits within three weeks; costs of Rs.25,000 were imposed on the disciplinary authority. Cross-references and Interrelationships The Court treated the invalid constitution of the Complaints Committee (Issue 1) and the breaches of natural justice (Issue 2) as cumulative and mutually reinforcing grounds for setting aside the removal order. Issue 3 (failure to eliminate trivial cases under Sub-rule 24) informed the Court's assessment of the disciplinary authority's motive and proportionality of action; all three substantive defects jointly warranted the remedy described in Issue 4.