9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 1235 - SC - Indian LawsSetting aside of order of penalty of withholding of 50% pension for all times to come, imposed upon the Respondent herein in connection with the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the allegations of sexual harassment. Whether the Central Complaints Committee committed any egregious error in looking into the second complaint dated 18.09.2012? - HELD THAT - It is well settled that when it comes to disciplinary proceedings, it is the inquiry authority and the disciplinary authority who could be said to be the fact-finding authority and the courts in exercise of their powers of judicial review should not sit in appeal and reappreciate the evidence or substitute its own findings. The scope of judicial review of the courts is limited only to the propriety of the decision-making process and the fairness of the inquiry procedure as held by this Court in BC. CHATURVEDI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 1995 (11) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT - As regards the manner in which the court ought to exercise its powers of judicial review in matters of disciplinary proceedings particularly one pertaining to sexual harassment, this Court in APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL VERSUS A.K. CHOPRA 1999 (1) TMI 522 - SUPREME COURT observed that the courts should not get swayed by insignificant discrepancies or hyper-technicalities. The allegations must be appreciated in the background of the entire case, and the courts must be very cautious before any sympathy or leniency is shown towards the delinquent. It further held that the courts are obliged to rely on any evidence of the complainant that inspires confidence. Whether the Central Complaints Committee committed any egregious error in putting questions to the witnesses in the course of the departmental enquiry and thereby vitiating the disciplinary proceedings? - HELD THAT - The obligation on the part of the Authority to ask the delinquent whether he pleaded guilty or had any defence to make is only in the circumstances, if the delinquent had not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or had not submitted any written statement of defence. Indisputably, in the case on hand, the Respondent had filed his written statement of defence dealing with all allegations on the ten points framed for determination that were enquired into by the Committee and also cross-examined all the witnesses on the same - mere violation of Rule 14(9) of the 1965 CCS Rules would not vitiate the entire inquiry. Rule 14(9) is only procedural. A four-Judge bench of this Court in MANAGING DIRECTOR. ECIL. HYDERABAD OTHERS VERSUS KARUNAKAR OTHERS 1993 (10) TMI 310 - SUPREME COURT held that in order to determine if prejudice had been caused by a violation of a procedural Rule or facet of natural justice, it must be shown that violation had some bearing either upon the outcome or the punishment imposed. The High Court completely failed to advert itself to the principles laid down by this Court as aforesaid, and mechanically proceeded to set-aside the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground that there was nothing to indicate that the Respondent was asked whether he pleaded guilty to the charges imputed in the second complaint without applying the principle of test of prejudice . Whether the Central Complaints Committee could be said to have based its findings on mere conjectures and surmises? Whether the case on hand is one of No Evidence ? - HELD THAT - If Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 permits a Judge to put questions to the parties or to the witnesses in order to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant facts and this provision being widely used by the judges throughout the country, we fail to understand as to how the complaints committee after being equated with a judge in a judicial proceeding be denied that privilege. However, it would be a different situation if a specific case of personal bias is made out against the members of the committee. After all, the very purpose of the disciplinary proceedings is to reach to the bottom of the fact while affording adequate opportunities to the affected party - the High Court was not correct in taking the view that the proceedings stood vitiated because the Central Complaints Committee put questions to the prosecution witnesses. Whether the High Court committed any egregious error in passing the impugned judgment and order? - HELD THAT - This is not a case of no evidence . Some evidence has come on record to indicate or rather substantiate the allegations of sexual harassment levelled by the complainant. What is most important to note at this stage is that the High Court has not gone into the sufficiency of evidence as it was aware that the law does not permit it to go into the issue of sufficiency of evidence for the purpose of holding a public servant guilty of the alleged misconduct. It is in such circumstances that in the entire judgment the High Court has concentrated only on technical pleas raised by the Respondent. It is only on the issue of point 7(a) that the High Court seems to have taken the view that the findings in that regard are based on conjecture and surmises. The High Court took the view that in respect of the allegations contained in Point 7(a) which relates to the Respondent making unsolicited phone calls to the complainant, although no evidence of the call recordings had been produced to substantiate the same, yet the Central Complaints Committee accepted the allegations as true, and therefore its findings could be said to be based on conjectures and surmises. The High Court committed an egregious error in passing the impugned judgment and order - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Central Complaints Committee committed any egregious error in looking into the second complaint dated 18.09.2012? 2. Whether the Central Complaints Committee committed any egregious error in putting questions to the witnesses in a departmental inquiry and thereby vitiating the disciplinary proceedings? 3. Whether the Central Complaints Committee based its findings on conjectures and surmises? Whether the case on hand is one of "no evidence"? 4. Whether the High Court committed any egregious error in passing the impugned judgment and order? Summary of Judgment: I. Whether the Central Complaints Committee committed any egregious error in looking into the second complaint dated 18.09.2012? The Supreme Court held that the Central Complaints Committee was within its rights to consider the second complaint dated 18.09.2012. Clause 10(i) of the 2006 Standing Order allows any person aggrieved to prefer a complaint before the Complaints Committee at the earliest point of time, and there is no bar on filing subsequent or additional complaints. The Court noted that the second complaint was filed promptly after the Central Complaints Committee was constituted and before its first hearing. The principle of "test of prejudice" was applied, and it was determined that no serious prejudice was caused to the Respondent as he was provided with the second complaint, was aware of the allegations, and had ample opportunity to defend himself. II. Whether the Central Complaints Committee committed any egregious error in putting questions to the witnesses in a departmental inquiry and thereby vitiating the disciplinary proceedings? The Court held that the Central Complaints Committee, being the inquiry authority, had the right to put questions to the witnesses. This power is implicit in Clause 10(viii) of the 2006 Standing Order, which allows the Chairperson of the Complaints Committee to put questions to the complainant during cross-examination. The Court emphasized that the complaints committee must be allowed to put questions on its own to ensure a proper, fair, and thorough inquiry. The Court referenced the decision in Pravin Kumar v. Union of India, which upheld the authority of the inquiry officer to question witnesses in disciplinary proceedings. III. Whether the Central Complaints Committee based its findings on conjectures and surmises? Whether the case on hand is one of "no evidence"? The Supreme Court found that the case was not one of "no evidence." There was substantial evidence, including witness testimonies, to support the allegations of sexual harassment. The Court noted that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt. The findings of the Central Complaints Committee were based on credible evidence, and the High Court erred in holding that the findings were based on conjectures and surmises. IV. Whether the High Court committed any egregious error in passing the impugned judgment and order? The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed an egregious error in setting aside the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The High Court failed to apply the principle of "test of prejudice" and incorrectly held that the proceedings were vitiated due to the Central Complaints Committee's actions. The Supreme Court restored the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, clarifying that no recovery of the amount already paid to the Respondent should be effected. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment and order were set aside, and the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was restored.
|
