Delhi High Court: The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution was filed seeking to assail the order dated 6-2-2024 (‘impugned order’) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) and vide the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the original application (‘OA’) preferred by respondent thereby setting aside the order dated 1-8-2017 passed by petitioners dismissing respondent from service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, and also the appellate orders dated 3-11-2017 passed against him. The Division Bench of Rekha Palli* and Saurabh Banerjee, JJ., agreed with the Tribunal’s decision that petitioners had dispensed with the enquiry only based on a perceived notion that respondent being police personnel, would threaten the witnesses and holding of an enquiry would cause trauma to the complainant. The Court thus held that it found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Background
On 4-4-2006, respondent was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police and while he was posted at the Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi, a complaint alleging sexual harassment was filed against him on 22-7-2017 by a trainee woman constable. Based on the complaint, a preliminary enquiry against respondent was conducted by the Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee, who submitted her report on 25-7-2017, pursuant whereto an FIR under Sections 354-A, 294, and 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 was registered against him on the very day. Consequently, vide order dated 26-7-2017, he was placed under suspension and was thereafter dismissed from service vide order dated 1-8-2017 passed under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
Being aggrieved by his dismissal, respondent preferred a statutory appeal, which was rejected on 3-11-2017. Respondent thereafter approached the Tribunal by way of the OA, which was allowed vide impugned order by setting aside the dismissal order dated 1-8-2017 and also, the appellate order dated 3-11-2017.
Counsel for petitioners submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the detailed reasons mentioned in the dismissal order passed against respondent for dispensing with the requirement of holding an enquiry against him. Considering the grave nature of charges of sexual harassment leveled against respondent and the fact that he had threatened the complainant and the witnesses during the preliminary enquiry itself, it would not have been practicable to hold a full-fledged enquiry as the same would have created further fear in the mind of the complainant. Further, the Tribunal overlooked the fact that once respondent had admitted his guilt, there was no requirement to hold an enquiry.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court took note of the reasons contained in the dismissal order and opined that the primary reason for petitioners not holding any enquiry against respondent was their presumption that respondent would threaten or intimidate the complainant and other witnesses. Petitioners thought that a prolonged enquiry would cause more trauma to the complainant. The Court also opined that it was evident from the dismissal order that petitioners had based on the evidence led in the preliminary enquiry, already made up their mind that respondent was guilty of serious misconduct and had lowered the image of the police force in the eyes of the public.
The Court opined that even though the charges against respondent were very serious and the interest of the complainant deserved to be protected, but it did not imply that the principles of natural justice and also the provisions of Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 should be given a complete go by on the basis of mere presumptions. The Court stated that only because respondent was a police personnel, it could not be a ground either to presume that the witnesses would not come forward to depose against him in a regular enquiry or to hold him guilty without conducting the statutorily prescribed departmental enquiry and that too in a matter like the present, where the complainant and the witnesses were also police personnel.
The Court opined that based on the report of the preliminary enquiry itself, it emerged that petitioners presumed that respondent was guilty of serious misconduct and therefore deserved to be dismissed at the earliest. This could not be treated as a ground to conclude that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry against respondent and this course of action was clearly violative of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
The Court stated that no doubt, respondent was a police personnel and any misconduct on his part was liable to be dealt appropriately, however, this does not imply that petitioners could, based on the gravity of the charges levelled against him, dispense with the requirement of an enquiry on absolutely vague grounds. The Court agreed with the Tribunal’s decision that petitioners had dispensed with the enquiry only based on a perceived notion that respondent being police personnel, would threaten the witnesses and holding of an enquiry would cause trauma to the complainant. The Court further noted that the Tribunal, while setting aside the dismissal order, had granted time to petitioners to initiate departmental proceedings against respondent as per law and thus held that it found no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
[State v. Sant Ram, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2872, decided on 23-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rekha Palli
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Avnish Ahlawat, SC; Tania Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Laavanya Kaushik, Aliza Alam, Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates
For the Respondent: Roopansh Purohit, Harsh Pahwar, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
