UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL

Citation: 2023 INSC 975, [2023] 13 S.C.R. 473, [2023] 13 S.C.R. 474

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.

Judgment text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL Civil Appeal No. 6190 of 2023 [2023] 13 S. C. R. 473 : 2023 INSC 975 CASE DETAILS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. DILIP PAUL (Civil Appeal No. 6190 of 2023) NOVEMBER 06, 2023 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI, J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ. ] HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: In an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the High Court by which it allowed the writ petition fi led by respondent and thereby set aside the order of penalty of withholding of 50% of his pension for all times to come, imposed upon the respondent in connection with disciplinary proceedings initiated against him on allegations of a lady employee of sexual harassment at workplace, the following questions arose for consideration:- I. Whether the Central Complaints Committee constituted by the Competent authority to inquire into the fi rst complaint dated 30. 08. 2011 committed error in looking into the second complaint dated 18. 09.

2012 containing additional allegations against the respondent alongwith few other documents including anonymous complaints made against the respondent in October 2011; II. Whether the Central Complaints Committee erred in assuming the role of a prosecutor by putting questions to the witnesses in the course of departmental enquiry and thereby vitiating the disciplinary proceedings; and III. Whether the Central Complaints Committee could be said to have based its fi ndings on mere conjectures and surmises and the case on hand was one of "No Evidence" Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Standing Order No. 1 of 2006 473 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R.

(Grievances Redressal Mechanism: To Redress Grievances of Women/ Sexual Harassment at Work Place) - Clauses 9 and 10(i) - Sexual harassment at workplace - Lady employee lodged complaint against respondent and subsequently submitted another (second) complaint containing additional allegations against respondent alongwith few other documents including anonymous complaints made against the respondent - Central Complaint Committee, constituted to inquire into the fi rst complaint, also looked into the second complaint - High Court held that the Central Complaints Committee was constituted by the competent authority to only inquire into the fi rst complaint - Correctness of.

Held: Irrespective of whether a prior complaint had already been made to any authority, a complaint regarding sexual harassment could be made under Clause 10(i) of the 2006 Standing Order to the complaints committee as-well - In the instant case, the second complaint had been promptly preferred right after the Central Complaints Committee was constituted and duly before its fi rst hearing - The High Court's reasoning that as the Central Complaints Committee was constituted on the basis of the fi rst complaint, its scope of inquiry was restricted to its content, is completely erroneous inasmuch as the Central Complaints Committee owed its existence to the 2006 Standing Order and not to the complaint - Moreover, even if it is assumed for a moment that the complaints committee owed its existence to the complaint, Clause 10(i) of the 2006 Standing Order envisages fi ling of a complaint to the complaints committee i. e.

, it envisages a situation where after a complaints committee had come into existence, a complaint may be preferred to it - In sensitive matters such as sexual harassment & misconduct, there is an obligation to look into the entire evidence of the complainant that inspires confi dence - It would be quite preposterous to hold that the complainant was precluded from making the second complaint before the Central Complaints Committee merely because she had already made one complaint - In the context of the second complaint, the only relevant aspect that required consideration was whether any serious prejudice was caused to the respondent - On facts, no prejudice could be said to have been caused to the respondent even if one believes that he was not asked to plead guilty to the second complaint - High Court mechanically proceeded to set-aside UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v.

DILIP PAUL 475 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" [Paras 49, 50, 55, 56, 65 and 66] Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Standing Order No. 1 of 2006 (Grievances Redressal Mechanism: To Redress Grievances of Women/ Sexual Harassment at Work Place) - Clause 10(viii) - Sexual harassment at workplace - Lady employee lodged complaint - Disciplinary proceedings conducted under Rule 14 of the 1965 CCS Rules - Central Complaint Committee constituted by the Competent authority to make inquiry had put questions to the witnesses in a departmental inquiry - Whether the same vitiated the inquiry proceedings - Service Law - Central Civil Services (Classifi cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - r.

14 - Disciplinary proceedings - "Fact Finding" Authority. Held: It is the Inquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority who are the fact fi nding authorities in a disciplinary proceeding - A perusal of r. 14 of the 1965 CCS Rules makes it clear that, where a 'Presenting Offi cer' has been appointed by the Disciplinary Authority, such Offi cer shall present the case in support of the articles of charge.

Conversely, what logically transpires from the aforesaid is that, where no presenting offi cer has been appointed, the duty or role to present the case in support of the articles of charge falls back on the Disciplinary Authority or the Inquiry Authority as the case may be - The power and discretion of the complaints committee to put question to the witnesses is further refl ected though implicitly in Clause 10(viii) of the 2006 Standing Order - There appears to be neither any statutory bar nor any logic to restrict the power of the complaints committee to put questions to the witnesses only to the context enumerated in the aforesaid provision - One fails to understand what other purpose the complaints committee which is deemed to be an 'inquiry authority' would serve, if it is held that the complaints committee cannot put questions to the witnesses - If s.

165 of the 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, how the complaints committee after being equated with a judge 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. in a judicial proceeding can be denied that privilege - 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. [Paras 69,73,75, 77 and 78] Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Whether the Central Complaints Committee based its fi ndings on conjectures and surmises - Whether the instant case is one of "no evidence".

Held: The evidence taken into consideration by the Central Complaints Committee for arriving at the conclusion that the charges were held to be proved would indicate that this was 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 - The allegation related to the respondent making unsolicited phone calls to the complainant, although no evidence of the call recordings had been produced to substantiate the same, was rightly accepted by the Central Complaints Committee keeping in mind the background of the case - The fi ndings of the Central Complaints Committee could not be said to be based on conjectures and surmises - The Central Complaints Committed duly noted that the non-availability of the call records was owed to the fact that the inquiry into the complainant's grievances was undertaken after a lapse of signifi cant time - Moreover, said fi nding is fortifi ed by the oral evidence of one of the witnesses who deposed that he was aware of the respondent making calls to the complainant.

[Paras 94, 95, 96 and 97] Service Law - Disciplinary inquiry - Standard of Proof. Held: In a disciplinary inquiry, the standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities - The courts must only interfere where the fi ndings are either perverse or based on no evidence at all. [Para 93] Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Scope of judicial review. Held: 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-fi nding authority and the courts in exercise of their powers of judicial review should not sit in appeal and re-appreciate the evidence or UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 477 substitute its own fi ndings - 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. [Para 42] Doctrines / Principles - Principle of "Test of Prejudice" - In Service Jurisprudence - Discussed.

[Paras 57 and 58] Doctrines / Principles - Principle of "No Evidence" - In Service Jurisprudence - Discussed. [Paras 79, 80, 86 and 89] Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Historical Background - Statutory Scheme - Discussed. [Paras 31-38] Crime against Women - Sexual harassment - Veracity and genuineness of complaint should be scrutinised to prevent misuse - Duty of the courts.

Held: Sexual harassment in any form at the work place must be viewed seriously - However, the charge of this nature is very easy to make and is very diffi cult to rebut - When a plea is taken of false implication for extraneous reasons, the courts have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and decide the acceptability or otherwise of the accusations - The veracity and genuineness of the complaint should be scrutinised to prevent any misuse of such laudable laws enunciated for the upliftment of the society and for equal rights of people without gender discrimination by anybody under the garb of "sexual harassment", lest justice rendering system would become a mockery. [Para 2] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES State of Haryana and Another v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491; Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others (2020) 9 SCC 471 : [2020] 7 SCR 1078; Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A. K. Chopra (1999) 1 SCC 759 : [1999] 1 SCR 117; West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd. ) v.

Ram Pravesh Singh (2008) 3 SCC 729 : [2008] 2 SCR 247; B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; Union of India and Others v. Mudrika Singh (2021) 14 SCALE 509 and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others v. B. Karunakar and Others (1993) 4 SCC 727 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 576 - relied on. 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404; Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v. Union of India and Others (2013) 1 SCC 297 : [2012] 9 SCR 895; Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 621; State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S. K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 : [1996] 3 SCR 972; State of U. P. v. Harendra Arora and Another (2001) 6 SCC 392 : [2001] 3 SCR 375; Sakshi v. Union of India and Others (2004) 5 SCC 518 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 723; State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. S.

Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 : [1964] 3 SCR 25; State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 : [1976] 1 SCR 521; Union of India v. H. C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364 : [1964] 4 SCR 718; R. Mahalingam v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Another (2013) 14 SCC 379; Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 589 : [2014] 13 SCR 1238 - referred to. Regina v. Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner, Ex parte Moore (1965) 1 Q. B. 456; The King v. Carson Roberts 1908 (1) K. B. , 407; French Kier Developments Ltd. v. Secretary of State for the Environment 1977 (1) All ELR 297 and Edward (Inspector of Taxes, Bairstow) (1956) Appeal Cases, 14 - referred to. Bernard Schwartz's Treatise on Administrative Law, 1976 Edition, at page 595 - referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6190 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 15. 05.

2019 of the High Court of Gauhati in WPC No. 7876 of 2015. Appearances: K. Parmeshwar, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Vaishali Verma, Ms. Manjula Gupta, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant. Avijit Roy, Adv. for the Respondent. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 479 JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT J. B. PARDIWALA, J. For the convenience of the exposition, this judgement is divided in the following parts: - INDEX* A. FACTUAL MATRIX .................................................................................. 4 A. 1 On-Spot/Preliminary Inquiry Report ................................................. 6 A. 2 Frontier Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report ............................ 9 A. 3 Central Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report ........................... 10 A. 4 Defence of the Respondent .............................................................. 23 A. 5 Proceedings before the CAT ............................................................ 23 A.

6 Proceedings before the High Court ................................................. 25 B. IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT ................. 26 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ..................... 29 D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT .................. 32 E. ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 37 E. 1 Relevant Statutory Scheme and Case Law ............................. 38 E. 2 Whether the Central Complaints Committee could have looked into the second complaint dated 18. 09. 2012? ................................................................................ 65 i) Principle of "Test of Prejudice" in Service Jurisprudence ............................................................................. 71 E. 3 Whether the Central Complaints Committee could have put questions to the witnesses in a departmental inquiry?.. .....

81 i) "Fact Finding" Authority in Disciplinary Proceedings ........ 81 *Ed. Note: Pagination in the Index is as per the original judgment. 480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. E. 4 Whether the Central Complaints Committee based its fi ndings on conjectures and surmises? Whether the case on hand is one of "no evidence"? ....................................... 87 i) Principle of "No Evidence" in Service Jurisprudence .... 87 ii) Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings .............. 95 F. CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 104 The Registry is directed to anonymize the name of the complainant in this Judgment, all orders that have been passed as well as in the records which are publicly available. 1. This appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and others being the unsuccessful respondents before the High Court and is directed against the judgement and order dated 15. 05.

2019 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 7876 of 2015 by which the High Court allowed the writ petition fi led by the respondent herein (original petitioner) and thereby set aside the 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. 2. We are dealing with a litigation relating to sexual harassment. Sexual harassment in any form at the work place must be viewed seriously and the harasser should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law. We say so because the same humiliates and frustrates a victim of sexual harassment, more particularly when the harasser goes unpunished or is let off with a relatively minor penalty. However, at the same time, it should be kept in mind that the charge of this nature is very easy to make and is very diffi cult to rebut.

When a plea is taken of false implication for extraneous reasons, the courts have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and decide the acceptability or otherwise of the accusations. Every care should be taken to separate the chaff from the grain. The veracity and genuineness of the complaint should be scrutinised to prevent any misuse of such laudable laws enunciated for the upliftment of the society and for equal rights of people without gender discrimination by anybody under the UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 481 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] garb of "sexual harassment", lest justice rendering system would become a mockery. In such circumstances, we have decided to look into this matter closely and in details. A. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The respondent herein was serving as the Area Organizer i. e. , the Local Head of Offi ce of the Service Selection Board (for short, "the SSB"), Rangia, State of Assam between September, 2006 to May, 2012.

In the very same offi ce, a lady employee was serving as the Field Assistant (Lady) (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant"). She lodged a complaint (hereinafter referred to as the "fi rst complaint") addressed to the Inspector General (for short, "IG"), Frontier Headquarters, Guwahati with one copy each forwarded to the DG SSB, New Delhi, Dy. IG, SSB, SHQ, Tezpur and the Chairperson of the National Women Rights Commission, New Delhi inter alia alleging sexual harassment at the hands of the respondent. The fi rst complaint dated 30. 08. 2011 reads thus: - "To, The Inspector General, Frontier Hqrs. SSB Guwahati Subject: Regarding information of personal grievances thereof. Hon'ble Sir, With due respect and humility, I the undersigned to draw your kind attention to the following matter. 1. I have joined the offi ce of the A. O Rangia in March, 2009, Since my joining I have been entrusted the task of receiving telephones and Mobiles in the Control Room, CAP, Training, Sports.

Then I was the only female employee in the Offi ce. 2. Having just started discharging my duties devotedly the AO Mr. Dilip Paul started teasing me tactically. He started making phone calls to me sometimes at night using unoffi cial and multimeaninged word. Even he went to the extent of visiting my residence where I stay alone with two of my children as my husband is a state Government employee in Manipur. 482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. 3. Sometimes CAP work needs close working with the offi cers. Taking the advantage he used to call me in his room and started teasing indirectly and unnecessarily makes me sit for hours. One day he went to the extent of saying "If you want to work happily in my offi ce, then agree to my saying. 4. I have been tolerating his acts since the last two and half years. I could neither inform my husband nor lodge any written complaint against such acts as it will be diffi cult to give evidence.

Unable to bear the situation I have verbally complaint to the then DIG Shri S. C. Katoch over Telephone in May, 2010 about Mr. Paul uncivilized altitude. The DIG did a favour and warned Mr. Paul of severe consequences if he did not stopped misbehaving. 5. Since then, he stopped teasing but instead began torturing me mentally. I have not been entrusted any work and ex-communicated in the offi ce. Throughout the day all I have to do is sit silently in the offi ce. If any of my colleagues talk with me, Mr. Paul would immediately call him and scold him bitterly. Sir, I am now so much depressed and mentally disturbed I have visited to the Doctors many times for which I have taken many medical leaves. Now, I am not in position to work even for a day under him. It also began aff ecting my family life. 6. In view of the above, I request your kind honour to look into the matter sympathetically and it is also requested to take necessary action against the Shri D.

Paul, AO Rangia to get rid of this problem as soon as possible for which I shall remain ever grateful to you. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 30. 8. 2011 (Smt. X) FA (Lady) A. O. Offi ce, SSB Rangia" UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 483 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] A. 1 On-Spot/Preliminary Inquiry Report 4. The Dy. IG, SSB, SHQ, Tezpur held a common "on-the-spot" fact fi nding inquiry in relation to the fi rst complaint dated 30. 08. 2011 and recorded the statements of the employees working in the offi ce of the respondent. The respondent was given an opportunity to fi le his reply to the allegations levelled in the complaints. On 13. 12. 2011, the "on-the-spot" fact fi nding inquiry was concluded, and two reports in that regard were submitted to the IG, Frontier HQ, Guwahati. a) On the fi rst complaint of sexual harassment, the staff members stated that they had not seen anything in the offi ce which could be termed as indirect teasing or harassment to the complainant.

The report reads as under: - "To The Inspector General, Frontier Hqrs. SSB Guwahati, Sub: Inquiry on complaints lodged by Smt. X FA(Lady) against Shri D. Paul, Area Organiser, SSB Rangia. Sir, With reference to Ftr. Hqrs. Ghy. letter No. FG-II/VC- VIG/08(Part)/15293 dt. 01-09-11, I visited the Offi ce of the Area Organiser, SSB Rangia on 1st November, 2011 and enquired into the matter. All the staff available in the offi ce on the date, were summoned one after another individually, but none of them stated to have seen or known Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser misbehaving with Smt. X, FA(Lady) in the offi ce. Further most of them stated that due to reasons best known to Shri Paul, Area Organiser, she was not allotted with any work for about 3 months before her release on transfer to Ftr. Hqrs. Ghy. and hence she was often seen depress.

On the other hand, in his written statement Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser pointed out that she was found even unfi t in any kind of assignment, and therefore, she was not assigned with any work just 484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. before her transfer i. e. from 18-08-11. But it is also duty of supervisory offi cer as administrator and manager to somehow motivate his sub- ordinate staff and take work from them. In the case of Smt. X, FA(Lady), Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser, is found to have failed to motivate her and get work from her. Regarding allegation of tactical and indirect teasing and making her to sit in the offi ce chamber of Area Organiser, hours together, none of the staff have stated to have ever seen such situation in the offi ce. Hence the allegation of direct/indirect teasing and harassments to Smt. X, FA(L) by Shri Dilip Paul could not be ascertained. However, since Smt.

X referred the case to National Women Rights Commission, New Delhi the matter may be under investigation by them. Yours faithfully Deputy Inspector General SHQ, SSB, Tezpur" b) Similarly, as per the report on the anonymous complaints, nothing substantive was found as regards the allegations. The said report further noted that during the inquiry the only thing that surfaced was the occasional rudeness and uncordial inter-personal relations of the respondent with three of his subordinate employees. Accordingly, the respondent was advised to improve his personnel management and administration of the offi ce. The said report reads as under: - "To The Inspector General, Frontier Hqrs. SSB Guwahati. Sub: Enquiry report on Anonymous Complaint against Shri D. Paul, Area Organiser, SSB, Rangia Sir, UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 485 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] With reference to Ftr. Hqrs. Ghy. letter No.

FG-II/VC-VIG/08(Part)/5660 dt 08-09-11, I visited Offi ce ·Of the Area Organiser, SSB, Rangia on 1st November, 2011 and enquired into the matter. All the staff present in the offi ce on the date, were summoned one after another individually. I obtained their statements individually and on the basis of the interaction with each of them; I opine as follow: i) From the statements of the staff it is observed that Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser sometimes shout to some of the staff in the offi ce, for the purpose of offi cial work only. No proof has been found regarding use of unoffi cial language. One or two offi cial stated that the Area Organiser used to be rude and shouted at them on some occasions on matters of offi cial work only. ii) Regarding passing of TA/DA, MR Bills etc. it is found that these works are going smoothly. There has been no occasion when he took interest of passing his own bill by neglecting that of others.

iii) Regarding granting of leave to staff and passing of bills etc. it is found that no refusal or delay occurred. However, while granting leave sometimes staff position and administrative convenience has been taken in to account. iv) It is observed that Area Organiser is using his own vehicle to attend offi ce. v) On the basis of statement given by each staff and from the para-wise reply given by the Area Organiser, it is observed that there is no evidence regarding use of unnecessary slang language by the Area Organiser, to his sub-ordinate staff but at times he used to be rude to get the work done within the time limit, from some of the subordinate staff . It is further observed that there is no cordial inter personal relation between Shri P. B. Gohain, SAO, Shri K. Siga, SAO, Shri J Singh, UDC and Area Organiser, Shri Dilip Paul. Therefore, these offi cers/offi cials may be shifted out in order to bring back cordial working atmosphere in the Area Offi ce.

At the same time, Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser may be advised to improve upon his man management, administration and other offi cial dealings, skills and tactics with his sub-ordinate staff to bring back congenial atmosphere in the offi ce. 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. Yours faithfully Sd/- Deputy Inspector General Sector Hqrs. SSB, Tezpur" A. 2 Frontier Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report 5. Simultaneously, a Frontier Complaints Committee comprising of three women members was constituted by the IG, Frontier HQ, Guwahati to inquire into the allegations of sexual harassment levelled by the complainant in her fi rst complaint dated 30. 08. 2011. The Frontier Complaints Committee upon completion of the inquiry, submitted its report dated 17. 01. 2012 to the Frontier Headquarters SSB, New Delhi through the IG, Guwahati, stating that the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be said to have been fully established or proved.

The Committee further observed that the complainant had lodged her fi rst complaint after a delay of more than two years and had also failed to produce any documentary evidence in support of her allegations. The relevant observations of the Frontier Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report are reproduced below: - "7) Finding of inquiring authority: - The inquiry committee assembled at FTR HQRs Guwahati on 25. 01. 2012 to ascertain the fact of the case. The committee has gone through the statements of complainant, charged offi cer, and the statements of prosecution /defense witnesses but the point raised in the complaint could not be fully established/ proved. The statement given by all the prosecution witnesses are not enough to prove the complaint. She has lodged a complaint after a gap of more than two years. The complainant failed to produce any documentary evidence based on the allegations levelled against the charged offi cer" A. 3 Central Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report 6.

While the Frontier Complaints Committee's Report dated 17. 01. 2012 was pending for consideration, the Ministry of Home Aff airs / Competent Authority, constituted another inquiry committee on 06. 08. 2012 being the Central Complaints Committee to conduct an appropriate inquiry into the complainant's allegations of sexual harassment. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 487 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] 7. Prima facie, it appears from the materials on record that the Central Complaints Committee had to be constituted, in view of Clause 9 of the 2006 Standing Order. Clause 9 of the 2006 Standing Order envisages two levels of complaints committee; (i) a Frontier Complaints Committee for the "combatised and in-fi eld offi cers" (ii) a Central Complaints Committee for the "non-combatised offi cers". At the time of lodging of the complaint, the respondent was serving as a non-combatised offi cer i. e. , Area Organizer.

For such reason, the decision to constitute the Central Complaints Committee had to be taken. 8. On 18. 09. 2012, the complainant through fax submitted a second complaint containing additional allegations against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the "second complaint") along with few other documents including the anonymous complaints made against the respondent in October 2011. 9. Accordingly, the Central Complaints Committee undertook the inquiry, and in the preliminary hearing held on 27. 09. 2012, it decided to treat the complaint as the charge-sheet in view of the fact that no specifi c charges were framed against the respondent. The respondent was provided with all the relevant documents including the original copy of the fi rst complaint dated 30. 08. 2011. After, confi rming with the respondent as regards the receipt of all relevant documents, the Central Complaints Committee inquired with the respondent whether he pleaded guilty to the charges or not.

The respondent pleaded not guilty and categorically denied the charges levelled against him. The relevant portion of the Central Complaints Committee's Report reads as under: - "VI. CHARGES WHICH WERE ADMITTED/ DROPPED/ NOT PRESSED: Shri Dilip Paul, the charged offi cer did not plead guilty to any of the allegations made by Smt. X, FA (Lady) vide complaint dated 30. 08. 2011 framed against him. " 10. The Central Complaints Committee in the course of its inquiry examined in all 20 witnesses produced by the complainant (incl. 5 witnesses who were earlier examined by the Frontier Level Complaints Committee) and 6 witnesses on behalf of the respondent (incl. 1 witness earlier examined 488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. by the Frontier Level Complaints Committee). Later, the Central Complaints Committee delineated the charges to be inquired by it into 10 distinct points. The points of determination framed by the Committee reads thus: - "VII.

CHARGES ACTUALLY INQUIRED INTO AND POINTS TO BE DETERMINED The Complaints Committee is aware that aspects of this complaint are implicated in the FIR that Shri Dilip Paul lodged on 26. 08. 2011 at P. S. Rangia, on the matter of an allegedly threatening message sent to him on his mobile phones by Smt. X's husband. In the counter-case fi led by Smt. X's husband, similar allegations of sexual harassment have been raised. The Committee has ascertained from the SP Kamrup that both the cases are still pending investigation. Nevertheless, going by what has been stated in the CCS, CCA Rules 14(3), which states that action of prosecution in a court and departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously. The CCS CCA Rules require the fact that the approach and objective in the criminal and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and diff erent, be kept in view, as is laid down by the various Supreme Court rulings to this eff ect.

Accordingly, the Committee decide to proceed with enquiry and submit its fi ndings. Smt. X has alleged that a few months after she joined Area Offi ce, Rangia in April 2009, Shri Dilip Paul, then A. O. Rangia, started making unwelcome sexual advances to her, and that upon her refusal to submit to his advances and his sexually determined misconduct, he withdrew all work from her. She has cited the following incidents as the substance of her complaint. Point 1: That Shri Dilip Paul would use the pretext of summoning into his room with work-related fi les in order to make comments of a sexually loaded and personal nature, such as remarks about her personal appearance and her looks, about how he wanted to marry a Manipuri girl like her. He would also boast at times about his sexual prowess and abilities in satisfying women who were unhappy with their husbands. He would also make comments that had a double meaning (of a sexual nature).

On such occasions, he would detain her in his offi ce for inordinately long periods. This charge, if substantiated, is admissible under the Vishaka defi nition of sexual harassment as it UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 489 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] involves sexually coloured remarks and other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. Furthermore, it may also be shown to be discriminatory if it is substantiated that Smt. X believed that her objection to Shri Dilip Paul's conduct would disadvantage her in connection with her employment and her apprehension that it would create a hostile work environment. Point 2: That Shri Dilip Paul would stare at her in the workplace, such as the repeated incidents in which he would come out from his offi ce into the room that she was sitting, on the pretext of drinking water.

This charge, if substantiated, is admissible under the Vishaka defi nition of sexual harassment as it involves sexually coloured remarks and other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. Point 3: That Shri Dilip Paul would attempt to touch her in an unwelcome sexually determined manner in the workplace, such as an incident when, on the pretext of teaching her to operate a laptop, he come close to her and touched her shoulder and body. This charge, if substantiated, is admissible under the Vishaka defi nition of sexual harassment as it involves physical contact and advances and other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. Furthermore, it may also be shown to be discriminatory if it is substantiated that Smt. X believed that her objection to Shri Dilip Paul's conduct would disadvantage her in connection with her employment and her apprehension that if would create a hostile work environment.

Point 4: That Shri Dilip Paul would often make her work much beyond offi ce hours, often after 2000 hours. He would then off er to drop here in his vehicle to her home. In general, Shri Dilip Paul would pressure her to drive with him in his vehicle, either when she was returning from work or in the town. Point 5: That Shri Dilip Paul, on the occasion that Smt. X with other offi ce colleagues had accompanied him to the railway station to book train tickets for the study tour to South India in march 2010, made an unwelcome sexual advance to her in full public view. While she was standing in the queue at the ticket booking counter, Shri Dilip Paul came to stand next to her and putt his arm around her shoulder and tried to hug her close to his body. Shri Dilip Paul said to her that he 490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. is sending her on the study tour to make her "mind fresh" so that she may forget her previous life and when she returned, begin a new one as Mrs. Paul.

Point 6: That Shri Dilip Paul subjected her to further unwelcome sexually determined conduct by the statements that he made when he came to the railway station to see off the group departing for the study tour. After the luggage had been loaded onto the train, Shri Dilip Paul came into the train compartment and said to Smt. X "tum jaa rahe ho to mari jaan jaa rahi hai. Ham ka saath jaanaa hi acchaa hota. Koi baat nahiin, tum study tour se waapas aa jaaoo, to tum Mrs Paul banogi. " Point 7: That Shri Dilip Paul made unwelcome sexual advances to her outside the workplace as well, where on several occasions, he propositioned her, asking her to leave her husband and marry him on the assurance that he would adopt her children as his own. Since July 2009, Shri Dilip Paul made it a habit to visit her uninvited and she felt unable to refuse entry to her hierarchically superior offi cer, fearing future discrimination. These visits took place even late at night.

Several incidents have been cited in the complaint in this connection. a. That Shri Dilip Paul used to make unsolicited phone calls to her, frequently at night and insisted on speaking to her for long durations, sometime up to half and hour. The phone calls were usually made between 19:00 and 20:00 hours, but occasionally, she also received calls from Shri Dilip Paul as late as 4. 30 a. m. The substance of these calls mostly consisted of unwelcome comments of sexual nature with the objective of making her submit to his unwelcome sexual advances. b. On one occasion, Shri Dilip Paul came to Smt. X's home at around 4. 45 a. m. and insisted that she came out for a morning walk with him. Fearful that if she refused, he would insist on coming into her house at that hour, she accompanied him for a short distance. c. That, on one uninvited visit to Smt. X's home, Shri Dilip Paul came with a bottle of alcohol and sought to pressure her to join him in drinking.

When she tried to get away from him by going to the kitchen, Shri D. Paul followed her and tried to force himself upon UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 491 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] her by embracing her. She somehow managed to extricate herself and ran out the house, and remained there until Shri D. Paul left the house. d. That on his uninvited visits to Smt. X's home, Shri Dilip Paul showed an unnatural and unhealthy interest in her daughter. He would call the child and draw her to him, and would then attempt to hold her in a very 'dirty' manner. On the occasion that this happened, he only let go of the child when Smt. X called the child to her in Manipuri. e. That when Shri Dilip Paul visited her house one evening in April 2010, shortly after her return from the Study Tour to South India, he made unwelcome sexual advances to her by his statement that they would become one in a few days time and that she should stop resisting.

He also tried to forcibly embrace her, but she extricated herself and ran into the room that her children were sleeping in. f. That Shri Dilip Paul, during an official trip to Nagrijuli in connection with the Civic Action Programme, made her sit next to him and tried to hold her hand and touch her, all of which behaviour was sexually determined, unwelcome and insulting. Smt. X also stated that there were no eyewitnesses to these acts, as only she ·and Shri Dilip Paul were seated in the middle seat of the car. Point 8: That Shri Dilip Paul began victimising her for her refusal to submit to his unwelcome sexual advances soon after he learnt that she had made a complaint about his misconduct to Shri S. C. Katoch, who happened to be DIG of another area. Smt. X had telephoned Shri S. C. Katoch after the incident reported in point 10, and told him all that had been taking place.

She stated that Shri Katoch informed her in a subsequent phone call that she made to him that he had issued a verbal reprimand to Shri Dilip Paul. However, a few days after the incident, Shri Dilip Paul called her into his offi ce and asked her whether she had made a complaint against him to Shri Katoch. Smt. X confi rmed to him that she had indeed done so, and to scare him, told him that she had made a written complaint. From that day on, Shri Dilip Paul withdrew all the work that was assigned to her and assigned it to another employee. Thereafter, and for the next three months, Smt. X was made to sit idle in the offi ce. Point 9: In late August 2010, Smt. X approached IG S. K. Singhal with a written complaint of sexual harassment in the workplace, which also contained an application for her transfer to Ftr Hqr Guwahati.

Shri Singhal asked her to separate the two complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace from the transfer request and issued an order transferring her to Ftr Hqr Guwahati on 1 September 2011. However, the transfer order did not contain directions for the payment of TA/DA and did not provide her any joining time. Point 10: Smt. X has also complained that the now-quashed enquiry into her complaint of sexual harassment in November 2011 did not provide her suffi cient time or opportunity to submit additional documents and produce additional witnesses relating to the past history of the accused. She has also stated that she was not aff orded the right of cross-examination of Shri Paul, or a chance to rebut his alleged false statements. After the completion of the thereafter quashed enquiry, she was not also provided a copy of the enquiry report.

In her deposition as well as the written submissions made to the Complaints Committee, she also pleaded that due cognizance be taken of the fact that, as a woman employee of the SSB, she was entirely unaware of that a Complaints Committee mechanism for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment was in place, and that as a complainant, she had the right to submit a request for either her own transfer or the transfer of the defendant. She has also queried whether the promotion of Shri Dilip Paul on 11 September 2012 to the rank of DIG is maintainable when a complaint of sexual harassment in the workplace against him was pending. " 11. While the Central Complaints Committee's Inquiry was still pending, the Ministry of Home Aff airs i. e. , the Competent Authority vide its order dated 30. 11.

2012 annulled the Frontier Level Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report on the ground that, the Chairperson of the said Frontier Level Complaints Committee was of an equivalent rank as that of the respondent and the same was in violation of the statutory provisions, more particularly the Standing Order No. 1 of 2006 (Grievances Redressal Mechanism: To Redress Grievances of Women/Sexual Harassment at Work Place) (for short, "the 2006 Standing Order"). UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 493 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] 12. Clause 9(1) of the 2006 Standing Order mandates that the chairperson of the inquiry committee must be senior in rank to the delinquent / charged offi cer and reads as under: - "9. COMPLAINT COMMITTEES 1. Chairman of committee should be senior to the offi cer / offi cial against whom the complaint is made. xxx xxx xxx "TO : I) SO(ADMN), FTR HQR GUWAHATI II) DR- K. S. DEVI, CHAIRPERSON, COMPLAINT COMMITTEE, FTR HQR GUWAHATI FM : AD(PERS-m), FHQ NEW DELHI REF.

FTR, HQR GUWAHATI LETTER NO. GF-II/VC-VIG/ O8(PART)/3270 DATED 17. 02. 2012 REG. SUBMISSION OF INQUIRY SUBMITIED BY THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMPLAINT COMMITIEE DR. K. S. DEVI ON 17. 01. 2012 ON COMPLAINT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT MADE BY SMT. X, FA (LADY) FTR HQR GUWAHATI AGAINST SHRI D. PAUL, AO RANGIA NOW DIG, FTR HQR SILIGURI (. ) IT IS OBSERVED THAT AS PER SOP ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE INQUIRY SHALL BE ONE RANK ABOVE OF THE GOVT. EMPLOYEE AGAINST WHOM HIS COMPLAINT IS MADE (. ) IN THE SAID INQUIRY THE CHAIRPERSON AND SH. D. PAUL AGAINST WHOM THE COMPLAINT/INQUIRY WAS MADE WERE IN THE SAME STATUS AND IN THE MEAN TIME SHRI DILIP PAUL WAS ALSO PROMOTED TO THE RANK OF DIG (. ) AS SUCH THE INQUIRY REPORT DATED 27. 01. 2012 OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AGAINST SHRI D. PAUL, THE THEN A. O. NOW DIG WHICH WAS CONDUCTED BY THE BOARD UNDER BELOW STATUS CHAIRPERSON AS PRESCRIBED IN THE STANDING INSTRUCTIONS IS HEREBY CANCELLED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY ALONGWITH BOARD (. ) FTR.

HQR GUWAHATI IS REQUESTED INFORM ALL CONCERNED ACCORDINGLY(. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO. 20/SSB. P-III/2011(4)-11606 DATED. THE 30. 11. 2012 SD/- 30/11/2012 ASSITANT DIRECTOR (PERS-M1)" 13. The Central Complaints Committee submitted its inquiry report on 28. 12. 2012 to the Ministry of Home Aff airs, wherein after recording its fi ndings on the aforesaid 10 points, held the charges of sexual harassment against the respondent to have been proved. The committee concluded its report with the following recommendations being reproduced below: - "XI. RECOMMENDATIONS The Complaints Committee finds that the charges of sexual harassment in the workplace have been well proven. Moreover a perusal of the charged offi cer's defence statement, in which Shri Dilip Paul attempts to slander and assassinate the complainant, alone speaks volumes about his respect for women.

In view of its findings, the Complaints Committee makes the following recommendations: 1. That Shri Dilip Paul be given exemplary punishment for his sustained sexual harassment of Smt. X in the form of dismissal from service, and he be stripped of promotion to DIG and the Police medal awarded to him. 2. That Smt. X be reimbursed for the TA/DA that was denied to her in her transfer to Ftr Hqrs Guwahati. 3. That Smt. X be provided a copy of the Complaints Committee report. 4. That the SSB implement on a war-footing its standing order 1/2006 by organizing regular workshops for women employees to sensitise them about the nature of sexual harassment and their rights as women employees, as well as the procedures detailed by the said order. Members of the Complaints Committees instituted by the SSB should regularly tour the various divisions and area offi ces of the SSB for such meetings. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 495 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] 5.

Further, regular workshops must be held for senior offi cers of the SSB to sensitise them with regards to their role and responsibilities regarding the implementation of the standing order 1/2006. " 14. On 16. 01. 2013. the respondent was provided with the Central Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report and was asked by the Disciplinary Authority to submit his reply / written representation, which was submitted by him on 30. 01. 2013. The Inquiry Report along with the written representation of the respondent was forwarded by the Ministry of Home Aff airs in accordance with the relevant rules to the Union Public Service Commission for the purpose of seeking advice on the penalty that was proposed to be imposed. 15. The order imposing penalty passed by the Disciplinary Authority reads thus: "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIR DIRECTORATE GENERAL, SSB EAST BLOCK-V, R. K. PURAM NEW DELHI - 110066 Date 05. 01. 2016 Order No.

14/SSB/PERS-I/2013(1) 69-79 WHEREAS, a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace was made by Smt. X, FA (Lady) vide her complaint dated 30. 08. 2011 against Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser who had superannuated from government service on 31. 03. 2013 as DIG. AND WHEREAS, Ministry of Home Aff airs being the disciplinary authority in respect of Group 'A' Offi cers vide their UO No. 20/SSB/Pers. III/11 (4)/Pers. III dated 06. 08. 2012 had appointed Smt. B. Radhika, Joint Director, CCTNS-II, NCRB, New Delhi as Chairman of the Complaint Committee to enquire into the said complaint of sexual harassment against Shri Dilip Paul. AND WHEREAS, the Chairman of the complaint committee had handed over the complaint of sexual harassment dated 30. 08. 2011 496 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. submitted by the Complainant to Shri Dilip Paul, DIG during the course of 1st hearing of enquiry held on 26. 09. 2012 at New Delhi.

Shri Dilip Paul, DIG had denied the allegations of sexual harassment levelled against him by the complainant. AND WHEREAS, the complainant had levelled various allegations of sexual harassment against the said Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser (now retired DIG), which are summarised here as under - (a) That the said Shri Dilip Paul started teasing her tactically. He started making phone calls at night using unoffi cial and multi-meaning words. At times, he would visit her residence, when she was alone. Further, he would summon her into his room in his offi cial capacity and would make her sit for hours. That the said Shri Paul on one pretext or the other used to make personal contact with her body. (b) That repeatedly, he used to tell the complainant that if she kept him satisfi ed by cooperating with the sexual activities, she shall be protected from all corners. (c) That in one of the incident, when he had visited her residence, he had entered the kitchen and embraced her.

(d) That he repeatedly proposed marriage to her. (e) That the said Shri Paul had many a times tried to outrage her modesty. (f) That she had complained against the Offi cer to the then DIG Shri S. C. Katoch, who had also warned the offi cer to desist from doing such activities. (g) That during the course of the proceedings, some additional allegations were also levelled. On these allegations, the Complaint Committee examined all the relevant witnesses in presence of the accused. The accused was aff orded all the opportunities of defense. AND WHEREAS, Smt. B. Radhika, Joint Director, CCTNS-II, NCRB, New Delhi, Chairman of the complaint committee submitted the inquiry report dated 28. 12. 2012 to the disciplinary authority i. e. Ministry of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 497 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] Home Aff airs. The Inquiry Offi cer in its fi ndings has proved all the charges levelled against the Charged Offi cer. AND WHEREAS, in terms of DoP&T OM No. 11013/2009-Estt.

(A) dated 03. 08. 2009, the report of Complaint Committee is to be treated as the enquiry report under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the disciplinary authority is to take action on that report as per the procedure prescribed in Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. AND WHEREAS, a copy of enquiry report after its acceptance was served upon the Charged Offi cer, Shri Dilip Paul, DIG for making his representation vide Memo No. 14/SSB/Pers-1/2013(1)/437-39 dated 16. 01. 2013. The Charged Offi cer had submitted his reply vide letter dated 30. 01. 2013 denying all the charges levelled against him. AND WHEREAS, the representation of the accused offi cer on the inquiry report was examined and considered by the Disciplinary Authority, whereafter the advice of Union Public Service Commission regarding quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the charged Offi cer vide letter No. 14/SSB/Per. I/2013 (1)/Pers-III dated 26. 04. 2013 was sought.

AND WHEREAS, the Union Public Service Commission vide its letter dated 22. 08. 2013 has advised imposition of penalty of withholding of 50% (fi fty percent), of monthly pension on permanent basis. The gratuity amount, if not otherwise, required may be released to him. AND WHEREAS, Charged Offi cer Shri Dilip Paul, Ex-DIG had fi led an OA No. 181/2013 before the Hon'ble CAT Bench Guwahati challenging there under constitution of Central Complaint Committee and its report dated 28. 12. 2012. Hon'ble CAT Guwahati vide its interim judgment dated 28. 06. 2013 had imposed STAY on operation of enquiry report dated 28. 12. 2012 of Central Complaint Committee. The said OA was disposed by Hon'ble CAT, Guwahati vide its judgment dated 03. 07. 2015 directing therein to complete the disciplinary proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of the order.

After the disposal of the case by the Hon'ble CAT and vacation of the interim directions of the Hon'ble Court, a copy of UPSC advice dated 22. 08. 2013 was served upon the Charged Offi cer vide Memorandum 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. No. 14/SSB/Pers-1/2013(1)/9923-24 dated 04. 08. 2015, which was duly acknowledged by the Charged Offi cer. The Charged Offi cer vide his letter dated 25. 08. 2015 had submitted representation against the UPSC advice. All the relevant issues have been accordingly examined by the Ministry of Home Aff airs being the Competent Disciplinary Authority. The issues agitated by the Charged Offi cer were found devoid of merit by the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the charge of sexual harassment of a woman at work place levelled against the Charged Offi cer has been proved beyond shadow of doubt by a Committee headed by Jt. Director, NCRB, which has been upheld by the Disciplinary Authority.

NOW, THEREFORE, after careful consideration on the fi ndings of inquiry report, UPSC advice, written submission of Charged Offi cer and other related records of the case, the President of India has come to the conclusion that justice would be met if the penalty of "withholding of 50% (fi fty percent) of monthly pension on permanent basis" is imposed upon the Charged Offi cer Shri Dilip Paul, the then Area Organiser, now Ex-DIG, SSB. ACCORDINGLY, the aforesaid penalty is hereby imposed upon Shri Dilip Paul, Ex-DIG who had superannuated on 31. 03. 2013. The gratuity amount, if not otherwise required may be released to him. (By order and in the name of the President) Sd/- (Vandan Saxena) Assistant Director (Pers-I)" 16. It appears that during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent superannuated on 31. 03. 2013 as Dy.

IG, Frontier Headquarters, SSB, Ranidanga, Siliguri, Darjeeling, West Bengal, and subject to the fi nal outcome of the disciplinary proceedings, he was granted provisional pension without retirement gratuity. A. 4 Defence of the Respondent 17. It is the case of the respondent that the complainant had preferred one application in August, 2011 with a request to transfer her from the Rangia UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 499 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] Offi ce to the Frontier Headquarter Guwahati. The request for transfer was made on the ground that the complainant needed to look after her ailing mother-in- law. However, her application was rejected by the IG, Frontier Headquarters on 24. 08. 2011 on the ground of non-availability of corresponding vacant post. It is the case of the respondent that on the very next day, he received a message on his mobile phone which read as follows; "I am hubby of one of your lady staff , wait and watch the end of your career. " 18.

According to the respondent the message was forwarded by the husband of the complainant as she harboured a grudge on the misconception that it was the respondent who was instrumental in getting her transfer application rejected. 19. It is also the case of the respondent that he had lodged the fi rst information report at the Rangia Police Station being Case No. 348 of 2011 in connection with the threats administered to him by way of a telephonic message. A. 5 Proceedings before the CAT 20. The respondent preferred OA No. 181 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati (CAT), assailing (i) the constitution of the Central Complaints Committee vide order dated 06. 08. 2012 (received via fax dated 03. 09. 2012), (ii) cancellation of the Frontier Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report vide order dated 30. 11. 2011 (received via Memorandum dated 10. 12. 2012 of the Frontier, Headquarters, SSB, Guwahati) and the (iii) Central Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report dated 28. 12.

2012. The reliefs which were inter-alia prayed for by the respondent in the captioned OA are reproduced below: - "8. Relief(s) sought for: The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to. set aside and quash the impugned - (i) FAX message dated 03. 09. 2012 (Anexure-11) and the constitution of the Central Legal Complaint Committee under the Chairperson Smt. S. Radhika, IPS there under; (ii) Memorandum dated 10. 12. 2012 (Annexure-16) and cancellation of the enquiry report of the Frontier Level Complaint Committee there under, and 500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. (iii) the Enquiry report dated 28. 12. 2012. (Annexure-17) of the · Central Complaint Committee. " 21. The CAT, Guwahati vide its final judgement & order dated 03. 07. 2015 dismissed the said OA No.

181 of 2013 observing that the Frontier Complaints Committee had not been constituted as per the 2006 Standing Order, and as the disciplinary proceedings were still pending, it refrained from expressing any opinion in regard to the Central Complaints Committee's Inquiry (except expressing some reservations on the issue of penalty recommended therein) and directed that the disciplinary proceedings be completed within 4-months. The relevant portion reads as under: - "61. Undisputedly, the Chairperson of the Frontier Level Complaint Committee was Junior in the rank to the applicant, inasmuch as the applicant got promotion in the rank of Area Organizer on 22. 12. 2005, whereas the Chairperson was promoted to the rank of complainant, which is not prescribed as per Standing Operating Procedure of the department.

The fact that the Chairperson of the said committee was junior to the applicant was not unknown to the respondents and the respondents knowingly constituted the Frontier Level Complaints Committee with a Chairperson junior to the applicant and therefore there was no valid reason to annul the report of the FLCC. 62. We are unable to accept the said submission by expressing that if there is a procedural irregularity even accrued unknowingly or unfortunately that could not be encouraged when we go into the proper adjudication of the matter. The Central Complaint Committee by going to the thorough enquiry by giving opportunity to the applicant and others with due examination as well as cross examination with the witness culminated into the opinion. xxx xxx xxx 64.

We have given our thoughtful consideration in the matter by taking into account the entire conspectus of the case, to the conclusion on the point that the consideration of Central Complaints Committee as per law laid down and in terms of the guidelines which has been duly followed by the department by taking care of the earlier observation UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 501 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] by giving our view that the Frontier Level Standing Committee fi ndings was not as per SOP reason as already given. We are not fi nding any infi rmity in the enquiry apropos sexual harassment of the women in work place and to that context, we are not giving any fi ndings or any opinion. xxx xxx xxx 66. However, respondents are directed to complete the Departmental Proceedings within four months from the date of receipt of the order. ... " A. 6 Proceedings before the High Court 22. Aggrieved with the aforesaid, the respondent preferred writ petition being WP (C) No.

7876 of 2015 before the Guwahati High Court challenging the judgement and order dated 03. 07. 2015 passed by the CAT, Guwahati. 23. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the Ministry of Home Aff airs vide its Order dated 05. 01. 2016 referred to above held that the charges of sexual harassment levelled against the respondent stood duly proved and after due consideration of the respondent's representation and the advice of the UPSC imposed a penalty of withholding 50% of the monthly pension on permanent basis. 24. In such circumstances referred to above, the respondent amended his writ petition pending before the Gauhati High Court and challenged the fi nal order of penalty dated 05. 01. 2016 in addition to the original reliefs prayed before the CAT, Guwahati. B. IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT 25. The impugned judgment of the High Court is in three parts.

In other words, the High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of penalty on three grounds: - (i)First, the High Court took the view that the Central Complaints Committee was constituted by the competent authority to inquire into only the fi rst complaint dated 30. 08. 2011, however, the Central Complaints Committee during the course of its inquiry also looked into the allegations levelled in the second Complaint dated 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. 18. 09. 2012 which it could not have. The relevant observations on this issue read as under: - "41. What is important to note is that a complaint dated 18. 09. 2012 along with fi ve Annexures was submitted by Smt. X to the Chairperson of the CCC and copy of such complaint was also made available to the petitioner. In the inquiry report the above fact is not mentioned. It also does not appear that the said complaint was brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority.

The CCC was mandated by the authority to inquire into the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011. However, it is manifest from the inquiry report that the complaint submitted on 18. 09. 2012 was also taken into consideration. It is noted by the CCC in the report under the heading "VI. Charges which were admitted/dropped/ not pressed" that the petitioner did not plead guilty to any of the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint dated 30. 08. 2011. Though the copy of the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011 was furnished, the same was not given in the form of articles of charge. The requirement of the offi cer proceeded against to be formally asked whether he pleads guilty or not would, according to the understanding of the court, is not an opportunity to such offi cer only to answer the same in a mono-syllable. To give meaning to the word "formally", a real and eff ective opportunity has to be granted to the offi cer concerned to make his comment in writing in response to the complaint.

Apparently, no such opportunity was aff orded. There is no indication that in respect of the complaint dated 18. 09. 2012, the offi cer was even asked as to whether he pleads guilty to the allegations made therein or not. xxx xxx xxx 43. Clause 10(ii) of the Complaint Mechanism provides that complaint shall contain all the material and details concerning the alleged sexual harassment. What were the allegations in the complaint fi led on 30. 08. 2011 after the petitioner had fi led an ejahar on 26. 08. 2011 1 have already been taken note of. A perusal of the above ten points would go to show that Point Nos. 1 to 6, 7 (b) to (f), 9 and 10 are no way connected to the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011. Two inquiries had UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 503 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] also taken place and, after more than a year later, after lodging of the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011, another complaint with many allegations was submitted to the Chairperson of the CCC on 18. 09. 2012.

In our considered opinion, the CCC could not have entertained such a complaint for the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding in absence of entrustment in terms of Standing Order. " (Emphasis supplied) (ii) Secondly, the Central Complaints Committee while conducting the inquiry, could not have assumed the role of a prosecutor by putting questions to the witnesses. According to the High Court, the same vitiated the inquiry proceedings. The relevant observations on this issue are as under: - 45. Perusal of the order-sheets, more particularly, the orders dated 26. 11. 2012, 27. 11. 2012, 28. 11. 2012 and 10. 12. 2012 go to show that the committee asked questions to the prosecution witnesses and examination-in-chief was done by, the committee. Prosecution witness, Mr. S. C.

Katoch, who was cross-examined by the complainant, in his statement had stated that the complainant had made only one call on his mobile and that she had mentioned that the petitioner is harsh in his offi ce work and had given her duty in control room for which she is to sit in the control room after offi ce hours. He had, in other words, negated the assertions made in the complaint that she had informed about sexual harassment meted out by the petitioner. The CCC, however, noted that it appeared that Shri Katoch had pre-judged the complaint as untrue. When his evidence was that there was no complaint of sexual harassment, there was no occasion for the CCC to opine that he pre-judged the complaint. He was also put fi fteen questions by the CCC, which was styled as "examination-in-chief". ... 46. It is noticed that the prosecution witnesses were also put questions by the CCC, which is evident from the report of the CCC under the heading "V.

Examination of witnesses", wherein the CCC itself recorded that CCC had conducted the examination-in-chief whenever it felt necessary. Thus, it is evident that the CCC also played the role of prosecutor, which vitiates the proceeding. " (Emphasis supplied) 504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. (iii) Thirdly, the Central Complaints Committee could be said to have based its fi ndings on surmises and conjectures. The High Court recorded that the case was one of "No Evidence". The relevant observations on this issue are under: "47. With regard to Point No. 7(a), the CCC had recorded that it had noted that no witness examined by it had specifi c knowledge of the events listed in, wrongly recorded as 5(a) - (f). It should have been events listed in 7(a) - (f). Events at 7(a) pertain to allegation of making unsolicited phone calls at unearthly hours and, that too, for long duration. No call records were produced.

However, CCC accepted the allegations by merely holding that the committee saw no reason what gain the complainant would have in fabricating the allegations and that it is understandable that no woman would be expected to confi de matters of sexual nature even to her female colleagues. The CCC is to record its fi nding based on evidence on record and not on surmises and conjectures. It will be worthwhile to recall that the prayer of the complainant for a transfer was rejected on 24. 08. 2011 and based on a threatening message issued by the husband of the complainant on 26. 08. 2011, the petitioner had lodged the ejahar on 26. 08. 2011. These aspects were, however, not weighed by the CCC. " (Emphasis supplied) 26. The High Court accordingly, allowed the writ petition vide its Impugned Judgment and Order and set-aside the penalty of permanently withholding 50% of the pension imposed upon the respondent. 27.

In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal. C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 28. Mr. K. Parmeshwar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in his written submissions has stated thus: - "I. There has been no violation of the principles of natural justice as the Respondent was given an opportunity to defend himself at every stage of the case. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 505 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] a. It is submitted that the Central Complaints Committee was constituted to look into the allegations made against the Respondent as prescribed under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classifi cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. b. The said Committee conducted its fi rst hearing on 26. 09. 2012 at 10:00 am. The Respondent was served with all the relevant documents including the complaint dated 20. 08. 2011. Further, the list of 'witnesses to be examined' submitted by the Complainant on 18. 09.

2012 was also supplied to the Respondent. The Respondent appeared and submitted that he will provide the name of his counsel within an hour. Therefore, on his request, the proceedings were adjourned to 2 PM. At 2 PM, he submitted an application seeking 30 days' time for engagement of counsel. The Committee after taking into account his request granted one week's time to provide name of his counsel in order to complete the proceedings within the stipulated time period. c. It is important to mention that the next date of the hearing was fi xed for 26. 11. 2012 i. e. , after 2 months. When the Respondent was enquired about the name of his counsel, he submitted before the Committee that he will represent himself and cross-examine the witnesses and he himself examined as many as 11 witnesses. Thus, the Respondent participated in the enquiry proceedings and chose to defend himself despite suffi cient time being given. d.

The allegation made by the Respondent that the Complainant submitted a list of witnesses later on 18. 09. 2012, which the Committee could not look into is misconceived. It is submitted that the Complainant can't be denied to produced witnesses to provide her claim and that too, even before the preliminary hearing was conducted by the Committee on 26. 09. 2011. e. The allegation raised by the Respondent that he was not informed of the charges in the form of a 'charge-sheet' is frivolous as he was supplied with the copies of all the complaints and all other relevant documents. This goes to show that he was well acquainted with the nature of allegations levelled against him and knew what he had to state in his defence. Given the above position, non-framing of the articles of charge cannot be said to be detrimental to the interest of the Appellants herein. 506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. f.

Therefore, it is submitted few infi rmities here and there would not vitiate entire proceedings unless it is shown that some prejudice has been caused to the Respondent as has been held by this Hon'ble Court in State of U. P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 847 (Para 39). In the present case, adequate opportunity was aff orded to the appellant not just by the Committee, but also by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority before taking any action against him. Therefore, this was not a case of "no opportunity" or "no hearing" but a case of "adequate opportunity" and "fair hearing" aff orded to the appellant before imposing a penalty of withholding 50% pension amount. II. No prejudice has been caused to the Respondent due to non-supply of the Reports submitted in pursuance of an on-spot enquiry and Frontier Level Complaint Committee. a. It is submitted that the fi rst alleged inquiry dated 13. 12.

2011 was pursuant to conducting of an on-spot enquiry and by the very nature of it, is summary in nature and not an inquiry of the nature envisaged in Vishaka & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 241 line of cases and the SSB Standard Operating Procedure on sexual harassment. Therefore, it cannot be equated with a disciplinary enquiry. b. It is relevant to note that before the report of on-the-spot enquiry was submitted, Frontier Level Complaint Committee (FLCC) was already constituted. The FLCC submitted its report on 17. 01. 2012. However, the same was cancelled by Memorandum dated 10. 12. 2012 on the ground that the Chairperson of the FLCC was not an offi cer who was senior to the petitioner against whom the complaint was made as required under Rule 9(b)(a) of the Departmental Standard Operating Procedure on Sexual Harassment. The said decision was conveyed to the Respondent vide Memo dated 10. 12. 2012. c.

Further, it is submitted that even if in the FLCC reports no allegations were found to be proved against the Respondent, same would not have any material bearing on the facts as the said report were subsequently annulled by the competent authority and a fresh committee was constituted as per the rules. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 507 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] III. The punishment imposed is proportionate to the offence committed by the Respondent. a. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court in a number of cases has held that the High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 would not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it shocks the conscience of the court. b. Further, it has been held in catena of cases that scope of judicial review in case of misconduct and imposition of penalty under the service jurisprudence is limited as to whether the charges have been established on the basis of a fair enquiry.

The scope is limited to the decision-making process, not the decision per se. This Hon'ble Court in a recent judgment Aureliano Fernandes vs State of Goa 2023 SCC OnLine SC 621 while pondering upon the extent to which a High Court can interfere with respect to the departmental proceedings and fi ndings thereof, observed the following: "62... Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts and once fi ndings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in its writ jurisdiction should not normally interfere with those factual fi ndings unless it fi nds that the recorded fi ndings were based either on no evidence or that the fi ndings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The Court is under a duty to satisfy itself that an inquiry into the allegations of sexual harassment by a Committee is conducted in terms of the service rules and that the concerned employee gets a reasonable opportunity to vindicate his position and establish his innocence. " c.

The Respondent herein was a member of the disciplined force and was holding a signifi cant post at the time of commission of off ence. He harassed the Complainant continuously for a period of more than 2 years despite warning issued by his superior. He did not stop despite the warning and started torturing the Complainant by not giving her work and making her sit idle till late in the night. Having superannuated during the pendency of the proceedings before the disciplinary authority, the Respondent superannuated on 31. 03. 2013 as DIG. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the punishment 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. imposed by the disciplinary authority for withholding 50% of monthly pension is proportionate to the off ence committed by the Respondent. " D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT 29. Mr. Avijit Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in his written submissions has stated thus: - "1.

The Hon'ble High Court in para 25 of the its judgment (Page -39 of SLP) rightly held that the scope of judicial review in case of misconduct and imposition of penalty under the service jurisprudence is circumscribed as the court is only required to examine as to whether the charges have been established on the basis of a fair enquiry as the Hon'ble High Court was also conscious of the fact that judicial review is not against the decision but the decision making process. 2. It is relevant to mention here that Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, more particularly sub-rule 1 and 2 of Rule 15 imposed a categorical restriction on holding of a 2nd and further statutory inquiry. But in the instant case, in spite of the fact that the sole respondent was exonerated from the alleged complaint by three successive enquiries i. e.

i) the Fact Finding enquiry, ii) fi rst the statutory enquiry conducted by the duly constituted Frontier Level Committee and iii) a second statutory enquiry (in fact it was 4th enquiry in the series which includes inquiry on the basis of another anonymous complaint) by the Central Complaint Committee was instituted. Subject matter of all the facts were on the same set of allegations. " 3. That, this Hon'ble Court in Vijay Shankar Pandey-Vs-U. O. I. and another, reported in (2014) 10 SCC 589, held as follows:- "26. It can be seen from the above that the normal rule is that there can be only one enquiry. This court has also recognized the possibility of a further enquiry in certain circumstances enumerated therein. The decision however makes it clear that the fact that the report submitted by the enquiring authority is not acceptable to the disciplinary authority, is not a ground for completely setting aside the enquiry report and ordering a second enquiry. " UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v.

DILIP PAUL 509 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] 4. Further, in K. R. Deb-Vs-The Controller, Central Excise, Shillong reported in [1971 (2) SCC 102], this Hon'ble Court has laid down that a 2nd enquiry is not permissible under the statutory provision of the Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The above decision was reiterated by this Hon'ble Court in U. O. I -V- Shri K. D. Pandey & Ors, reported in [2002 (10) SCC 471]. 5. The above quoted decisions of the Apex Court conclusively mandate that - (1) A second enquiry is not permissible, and (2) It is the correctness of the conclusion recorded in the enquiry report which determines the legality of the conclusions and not the mere technical fl aws. These principles are fi t to be extrapolated in the instant case. 6. That, the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011 contained only 2 (two) allegations, but the Central Complaint Committee extrapolated the allegations to as many as 10 nos.

incorporating therein the newly added exaggerated versions of the complainant and delved into those, thus travelling beyond the allegations in the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011 and overstepping its jurisdiction in violation of procedure laid down in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 7. The Hon'ble High Court in para 41 of its impugned judgment (Page 54 of the SLP) rightly observed that a complaint dated 18. 09. 2012 along with fi ve Annexures was submitted by Smt. X (Complainant) to the Chairperson of the Central Complaint Committee (CCC) and copy of such complaint was also made available to the sole respondent. In the inquiry report the above fact is not mentioned. It also does not appear that the said complaint was brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority. The Hon'ble High Court rightly held that the Central Complaint Committee (CCC) was mandated by the authority to inquire into the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011.

However, it is manifest from the inquiry report that the complaint submitted on 18. 09. 2012 was also taken into consideration. It was also noted by the Hon'ble High Court that the CCC in the report under the heading "VI. Charges which were admitted/dropped/not pressed" that the petitioner did not plead guilty to any of the allegations made by the complainant in her complaint dated 30. 08. 2011. Though the copy of the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011 was furnished, the same was not given in the form 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 13 S. C. R. of articles of charge. The requirement of the offi cer proceeded against to be formally asked whether he pleads guilty or not would, according to the understanding of the court, is not an opportunity to such offi cer only to answer the same in a mono-syllable.

The Hon'ble High Court held that to give meaning to the word "formally", a real and eff ective opportunity has to be granted to the offi cer concerned to make his comment in writing in response to the complaint. Apparently, no such opportunity was aff orded. There is no indication that in respect of the complaint dated 18. 09. 2012, the offi cer was even asked as to whether he pleads guilty to the allegations made therein or not. 8. That, the Hon'ble High Court at para 43 of its judgment ( Page 70-71 of the SLP) rightly held that few points of allegations are no way connected to the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011. The Hon'ble High Court held that two inquiries had also taken place and, after more than a year later, after lodging of the complaint dated 30. 08. 2011, another complaint with many allegations was submitted to the Chairperson of the CCC on 18. 09. 2012.

Accordingly the Hon'ble High Court rightly held that the CCC could not have entertained such a complaint for the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding in absence of entrustment in terms of Standing Order. 9. That, the Hon'ble High Court at para 44 & 45 of its judgment (Page 71-74 of the SLP) rightly held that the orders dated 26. 11. 2012, 27. 11. 2012, 28. 11. 2012 and 10. 12. 2012 go to show that the committee asked questions to the prosecution witnesses and examination-in-chief was done by the committee. Prosecution witness, Mr. S. C. Katoch, who was cross-examined by the complainant, in his statement had stated that the complainant had made only one call on his mobile and that she had mentioned that the sole respondent is harsh in his offi ce work and had given her duty in control room for which she is to sit in the control room after offi ce hours.

He had, in other words, negated the assertions made in the complaint that she had informed about sexual harassment meted out by the sole respondent. The CCC, however, noted that it appeared that Shri Katoch had pre-judged the complaint as untrue. When his evidence was that there was no complaint of sexual harassment, there was no occasion for the CCC to opine that UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL 511 [J. B. PARDIWALA, J. ] he pre-judged the complaint. He was also put fi fteen questions by the CCC, which was styled as "examination-in-chief" 10. That, the Hon'ble High Court at para 46 of its judgment ( Page 74 of the SLP) rightly held that the prosecution witnesses were also put questions by the CCC, which is ev