Dr Susanta Kumar Padhy vs AIIMS

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

O.A.No. 260/0061 of 2022

Reserved on 25.08.2026 Pronounced on 31.08.2026

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A)
HON’BLE MR. RAJNISH KUMAR RAI, MEMBER (J)

Dr. Susanta Kumar Padhy, aged about 46 years,
S/o- Hari Bandhu Padhy, Additional Professor
(Ex-Head of the Department), Ex-Nodal Officer,
DDAP, Department of Psychiatry, AIIMS,
Bhubaneswar, Sijua, Patrapada, Bhubaneswar,
Dist- Khurda, Odisha, PIN-751019.
..... Applicant

For the Applicant : Mr. T.R.Mohanty, Counsel

- Versus -
1. Union of India, represented through its
Secretary, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Room No. 348; 'A' Wing. Nirman
Bhavan, New Delhi-110011.

2. President, All India Institute of Medical Science,
Sijua,Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurd-
751019.

3. Director, All India Institute of Medical Science,
Sijua,Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, Dist-Khurda-
751019.

4. Chairman, Internal Complain Committee, All
India Institute of Medical Science, Sijua,
Patrapada, Bhubaneswar, Dist- Khurda-751019.

.....Respondents
For the Respondents: Mr. C.Mohanta, Counsel

RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
2

O R D E R

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):
The Applicant [Dr. Susasnta Kumar Padhi] working as Additional
Professor in Psychiatry, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar has filed this Original
Application u/s. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking
quashing of the report dated 30.04.2021 of the Internal Complaint
Committee [ICC], constituted under Sexual Harassment of Women at
Work Place [Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal] Act, 2013 [now
referred as Act, 2013], placed at Annexure-A/6, and, also charge sheet
issued vide Memorandum No. AIIMS/BBSR/Admin/Complaints/4666
dated 10/11.12.2021, placed at Annexure-A/7, under Rule 14 of
Central Civil Services [Classification, Control & Appeal] Rules, 1965
[herein after referred as Rules 1965] based on the report of the ICC, on
the ground that the entire action is highly illegal, arbitrary and de hors
the rules and law on the subject.
2. It is the case of the applicant that a plain reading of the complaint
of sexual harassment dated 13.02.2021 of complaint [ name is not
disclosed and is stated as ‘Y’] would show that the allegations
contained therein are vague and are based on conjectures and surmises
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
3

and, thus, are not sustainable in law. The same is also the situation in
the statement dated 13.03.2021 of the complainant before the ICC, as
recorded in the Inquiry Report dated 30.04.2021 of the ICC. No date or
time or alleged incidents are given. The surrounding circumstances and
the actual complaint have the complete indication of Honey Trapping
against the applicant yet the authorities shown their interest to find the
truth, which makes it abundantly clear that all forces had joined hands
to prosecute and persecute the applicant. As far as the vagueness of the
allegations is concerned, the applicant relied on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs.
State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court granted relief to the applicant therein on the ground that the
allegations were vague. Hence, initiation of disciplinary proceedings,
based on the report of the ICC, being void needs to be quashed. The
ICC was appointed in violation of Section 4(3)(b) of the Act, 2013 and
also in violation of the well-settled law. The ICC did not allow adequate
opportunity to applicant to defend properly. It is well-settled that if the
charge is serious in nature, the standard of proof required is 'beyond
reasonable doubt' vide Govind Singh Vs. Harchand Kaur , (2011) 2
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
4

SCC 621]. In cases of sexual harassment, criminal liability is also there.
Therefore, the allegations against the applicant had to be proved to the
hilt, which has not been done in the present case. The judgment dated
16.05.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 7592 of
2001 [ Dr. Pushkar Saxena Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and
Others ] also provides that the ICC has to follow the procedure
provided in Rule 14 of Rules, 1965 for conducting the enquiry into
complaints of sexual harassment and violation of the same would
nullify the enquiry. This judgment is squarely applicable to the present
case, inasmuch as the enquiry against the applicant was conducted in
complete violation of Rule 14 of Rules, 1965. The ICC did not inform the
applicant that he was entitled to a Defence Assistant. The enquiry was
conducted behind the back of the Applicant. The applicant was not
given a chance to cross-examine the witnesses. The applicant was
forced to depose in the enquiry and to present his defence before the
closure of the case of the prosecution. Further, there was no Mandatory
Questioning of the applicant in terms of Sub-Rule (18) of Rule 14 of
Rules, 1965. Also, no daily order sheets of the enquiry were prepared
and supplied to the applicant. The major penalty charge sheet dated
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
5

11.12.2021 is bad in law, as the same has not been signed by the
Disciplinary Authority and further, the same is not in the proper
Format. In this regard, reference is made to the order dated 27.11.2018
of the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 4324 of 2018
( Shekher Srivastava Vs. Union of India ).
3. The case of the respondents both in pleadings as well as in course
of argument are given in a seriatim as under:
[i] Background of the Complaint : The applicant, Dr. Susanta Kumar
Padhy, is working as Additional Professor in the Department of
Psychiatry, AIIMS Bhubaneswar, and was also functioning as Nodal
Officer of the Drug De-addiction Programme (DDAP). On 13.02.2021,
one Doctor ‘Y’ [name is not disclosed], Assistant Professor, Department
of Psychiatry, made a written complaint before the Director, AIIMS
Bhubaneswar alleging misconduct by the applicant, which was
forwarded to the Chairperson of the ICC. Initially, the Chairperson of
the ICC recorded that the allegations did not appear to be of a sexual
nature and, therefore, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC.
However, the Director, AIIMS Bhubaneswar, after examining the
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
6

complaint, specifically directed the Chairperson of the ICC to convene a
meeting of the Committee and consider Point No. 4 of the complaint to
determine whether the dignity of a woman employee had been affected
at the workplace. Accordingly, vide communication dated 04.03.2021,
the Director instructed the ICC to examine the matter in accordance
with law.
[ii] Inquiry was conducted in accordance with Law: Pursuant to the
direction of the Director, a meeting of the ICC was held with the
participation of the External Member on 26.02.2021. Upon
consideration of the complaint, the External Member advised that the
allegations disclosed issues falling within the ambit of the Act, 2013,
whereupon the Committee resolved to conduct formal inquiry.
Applicant was informed of the initiation of the inquiry vide letter dated
09.03.2021. Thereafter, the ICC conducted a detailed inquiry strictly in
accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2013 and the rules framed
thereunder, following the prescribed procedure and affording due
opportunity to the applicant during the inquiry. Upon completion of the
inquiry, the ICC submitted its report dated 04.05.2021 to the
Competent Authority, concluding that the allegations of sexual
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
7

harassment against the applicant stood proved beyond doubt and
recommending appropriate action.
[iii] Issuance of Charge Memorandum in Compliance with DoPT
Guidelines: The DoP&T vide Office Memorandum dated
16.07.2015prescribed the procedure to be followed after receipt of an
ICC Report. Paragraph 12 of the said Office Memorandum requires the
Disciplinary Authority to examine the report and determine whether
disciplinary proceedings should be initiated under Rule 14 of the Rules,
1965. In strict compliance with the said guidelines, and, after obtaining
approval of the competent authority, namely the President of the
Institute, who is also the Chairman of the Governing Body, the
Disciplinary Authority issued the Memorandum of Charge dated
11.12.2021 to the applicant together with the Articles of Charge and a
copy of the ICC Report. The Applicant was called upon to submit his
written statement of defence. The Governing Body of the Institute, in its
th
8 Meeting held on 23.11.2021, duly ratified the decision to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the Applicant under Rule 14 of the
CCS(CCA) Rules based on the findings of the Internal Complaints
Committee read with the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2015.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
8

Instead of submitting his defence, he sought copies of documents and
extension of time and the matter is still at a fluid stage. The inquiry was
conducted by a duly constituted Internal Complaints Committee in
accordance with the provisions of Act, 2013 and the Rules framed there
under read with DoPT Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2015. The
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Applicant are strictly in
accordance with law and suffer from no procedural or legal infirmity.
[iv] Allegation Regarding Constitution of ICC is Misconceived:
According to the applicant, the ICC was not in existence when the
inquiry was conducted. The said contention is factually incorrect. Vide
Office Order dated 07.04.2021, the Director, AIIMS Bhubaneswar,
reconstituted the Internal Complaints Committee under the
Chairmanship of Dr. Baijayantimala Mishra for a period of three years
with retrospective effect from 12.01.2021 to 11.01.2024. The
reconstitution merely formalized the Committee for the specified
tenure and validates the functioning of the Committee during the
relevant period. The Office Order clearly gives effect to the constitution
of the Committee from 12.01.2021, thereby covering the entire period
during which the inquiry was conducted. Accordingly, the inquiry
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
9

cannot be challenged on the ground that the ICC lacked jurisdiction or
legal existence.
[v] Applicant is Facing Another Sexual Harassment Proceeding: The
Applicant is also facing another disciplinary proceeding arising out of a
complaint of sexual harassment lodged by Another Doctor ‘X’ [name
not disclosed] Ex-Assistant Professor (Contractual), Department of
Psychiatry, AIIMS Bhubaneswar. Based on the report of the ICC in that
matter, a separate Charge Memorandum has also been issued, which
has been challenged by him in O.A. No. 563 of 2021 and the same is
pending before this Bench. The present challenge is therefore one
among multiple disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Applicant
pursuant to independent complaints.
Hence, according to the respondents, there being no infirmity,
illegality or irregularity in the decision making process of the matter,
judicial intervention at this stage is uncalled for and the Original
Application being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.
4. The arguments of the applicant’s counsel are as under:
[a] The Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training,
th
Office Memorandum No. 11013/11/2001- Estt.(A), dated the 12
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
10

December, 2002 mandated formation of Complaint Committee in every
organization to be the Statutorily Appointed Inquiring Authority in
cases of Complaints of Sexual Harassment in which in so far as “Status
of the Committee”, it was provided that “ the guidelines laid down by the
Supreme Court provide, inter alia, for the constitution of a Complaints
Committee in the employer's organization for redress of the complaint
made by the victim. In this connection, a question has been raised
regarding the status of the inquiry held by the Complaints Committee. It
is clarified that the findings of the Complaints Committee regarding
sexual harassment of the complainant/victim will be binding on the
disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the
Government servants concerned under the provisions of the CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965. The report of the Complaints Committee should
be treated as a preliminary report against the accused Government
servant ”.
[b] Subsequently, vide Government of India, Department of
Personnel and Training Notification No. 11012/5/200 1-Estt.(A), dated
01.01.2004, published as GSR 225 in the Gazette of India, dated
10.07.2004, Rule 14 (2) and the proviso thereto, in CCS (CC&A) Rules,
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
11

1965 it was inserted that " the complaints Committee established in
each Ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such
complaints, shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed
by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of these rules ".
[c] Thus, once the enquiry into the allegations of Sexual Harassment
has been enquired into and a Report has been submitted by the
Internal Complaints Committee [ICC] of the All India Institute of
Medical Sciences [AIIMS], Bhubaneswar on 30.04.2021, the same ought
to have been treated as final Report under the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [Rules. 1965]. On a
conjoint reading of the provisions made under Sexual Harassment of
Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules,
2013 [Act, 2013] and the DoP&T OM dated 27.11.2014, it will be
evident that if the ICC deviates from the prescribed procedure for
conducting enquiry, good and sufficient reasons must be given for the
same only after putting notice on the accused.
[d] Section 9(1) of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 provides that a
Complaint of Sexual Harassment has to be made within ninety days of
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
12

the last incident. The second Proviso to the said Section provides that
the Internal Complaints Committee can extend the time by another
ninety days for certain reasons. The same is not the case here, as the
Internal Complaints Committee has not granted any extension to the
Complainant.
[e] Hence, initiation of disciplinary proceedings by issuing
Memorandum of charge sheet under Rule 14 dated 11.12.2021, for self
same allegation/cause is a greater evil which inheres the holding of a
fresh/de novo enquiry, the smaller evil that is proscribed in law which
amounts to flying in the teeth of the Doctrine of Circuitous Contrivance
and against the well known principle that what cannot done directly,
cannot be done indirectly. In this connection, reference is made to the
decision of CAT, PB, New Delhi in the case of Dr. Rati Singh Vs. Lt.
Governor of Delhi and Others in OA No. 3019 of 2021.
[f] Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1965 empowers the designated authority for the next
steps to be taken on receipt of enquiry report under which the
Disciplinary Authority has the option under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 15 of
the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
13

1965 to remit the case back for further enquiry, but,in this case, the
Disciplinary Authority has forwarded the Inquiry Report to the
Applicant invoking Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 15 of the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Therefore, there can
be no question of any further penal action in the matter. Reference is
made to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court to the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh Vs. Thakur Bharat Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1170 to
state that any action having prejudicial/penal consequence, such action
must have the support of a statute empowering the same, contrary to
which action taken is invalid.
[g] It is settled law that when a discretionary power is conferred on an
authority, the authority must exercise that power after applying its
mind to the facts and circumstances to the case. If the condition is not
satisfied, there is a clear non-application of mind on the part of the
authority concerned and the resultant decision will be bad and non-est
in law. Hence, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings vide
Memorandum of charge dated 11.12.2021 being done with total non-
application of mind, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
14

[h] The Applicant is controlled, regulated and governed by the Central
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rule 1965. Rule 14 of
the said Rules provides the procedure for imposing major penalty.
[i] The Complaint submitted by ‘Y’ [ name not disclosed ], does not
contain any such incident of Sexual Harassment, in terms of the
provisions of Section 9(1) of The Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. There is
a mention of Meeting dated 10.02.2021, but the incident therein about
that date (10.02.2021) do not amount to Sexual Harassment, as was
held by the Letter dated 17.02.2021 of the ICC.
[j] Admittedly, the President, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar is the Disciplinary
Authority of the Applicant. Instead of placing the Letter dated
17.02.2021 of the ICC before him, the Director, AIIMS, Bhubaneswar
sought further enquiry into the matter by the ICC, which is
impermissible under law. Therefore, the impugned fresh Inquiry
Report dated 30.04.2021 of the ICC is non-est in law, having been
conducted under the directions of an Authority, not competent to do so.
[k] During enquiry into the Complaint of Sexual Harassment dated
13.02.2021 of ‘Y’, she had deposed that about two months after her
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
15

joining on 31.03.2020, the Applicant committed sexual harassment. In
terms of Section 9(1) of Act, 2013, the allegation of sexual harassment
must have occasioned during end of May, 2020 or the beginning of
June, 2020 since the period of ninety days ends in the first week of
September, 2020 or in worst must take place within the extended
period of limitation which expired first week of December, 2020. The
Complaint of Sexual Harassment was admittedly made by ‘Y’ only on
13.03.2021 before the ICC, and, therefore, the same is barred by
limitation. It may be noted that even if it is said that the Complaint
dated 13.02.2021 gives a hint of the said Sexual Harassment, then too,
the Complaint is barred by limitation. Further, as the allegations of
Sexual Harassment have Criminal connotations, limitation has to be
strictly applied. The ICC does not have the power to entertain stale
complaints of sexual harassment. Therefore, the impugned Inquiry
Report dated 30.04.2021 of the ICC has no legs to stand.
[l] The complaint made by ‘Y’ on 13.02.2021, even on its face value,
cannot be said to be an allegation of sexual harassment as defined
under the Act, 2013 read with DoP&T OM dated 27.11.2014. In this
connection, reference is made by the decision dated 07.08.2014 of the
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
16

Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in WP No. 459 of2014 ( Debdulal Maity
v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others ). Since the
procedure prescribed in the Statute ingrains a safeguard for the Officer
against whom accusations have been made, any violation of procedural
safeguards is fatal to the proceedings, reference in this regardis made
to the decision in the case of Mayor and Corporation of Port Louis v.
The Honourable Attorney General (Mauritius) , [1965] AC 1111.
[m] The principles of natural justice entails reasonableness and the
impugned action of the Respondents in conducting an enquiry against
the Applicant after a long period of five years, without issuing a show
cause notice is bad in law, being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reference is made to the decisions
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss)
Binapani Dei , AIR 1967 SC 1269; M. Gopala Krishna Naidu v. State of
Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1968 SC 240; A.K. Kraipak& Ors. etc v. Union
of India & Ors ., AIR 1970 SC 150; D.K. Yadav v. M.A. Industries Ltd. ,
1993 SCR (3) 930; and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India ,
(1981) 1 SCC 664. Hence, the charge sheet dated 11.12.2021 and
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
17

Inquiry Report dated 30.04.2021 of the ICC are bad in law and needs to
be set aside.
[n] The ICC can take cognizance of any complaint of sexual harassment
only when the same is entrusted to them by the Disciplinary Authority
as per the conditions stipulated in Paragraph 5(4) of the DoP&T OM
dated 27.11.2014 as well as Rule 14(2) of Rules, 1965. The impugned
Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 21.03.2024 has also been issued
under Rule 14 of Rules, 1965 and, therefore , the enquiry on the basis of
the impugned Major Penalty Charge Sheet dated 11.12.2021 has to be
held in terms of Rule 14 of Rules, 1965. In this regard, reference is
made to the Judgment dated 10.09.2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of
Himachal Pradesh in Civil Writ Petition No. 3318 of 2021 and Judgment
dated 10.09.2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ
Petition No. 56994 of 2018 (S-DE). A Complaint to the ICC is to be
treated as a Charge Sheet, a reference is also made to the judgment
dated 30.09.2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 821
of 2014 [ Avinash Mishra v. Union of India ].
[o] The Applicant was entitled to a Defence Assistant in compliance of
Rules and principles of natural justice. The ICC did not give him any
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
18

such opportunity. In terms of the Judgment dated 06.02.2015 in Civil
Appeal No. 8224 of 2012 ( Ramesh Chandra Vs. University of Delhi ),
enquiry without following the principles of natural justice would be
bad in law. Hence, the report of ICC and, of that matter, the charge sheet
are not sustainable.
[p] In terms of the provisions, the ICC must conduct the enquiry in
terms of the provisions of Rule 14 of Rules, 1965, as far as practicable,
which implies that if for any reason it is not found practicable to
conduct the enquiry in terms of the provisions of Rule 14 of Rules,
1965, then a reasoned order has to be issued indicating as to which
procedure is not practicable to be followed and why and, further, there
is a need to indicate what procedure is to be followed and why. Further,
the Applicant has to be put to notice in this regard. This, having not
been done in the instant case, the entire proceedings are vitiated.
[q] Vide order dated 22.05.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014 -
Aureliano Fernandes Vs. State of Goa and Others , the Hon’ble Apex
Court clarified the step to step action to be taken in Sexual Harassment
matters.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
19

[r]. A plain reading of the complaint of sexual harassment dated
13.02.2021 of ‘Y’ would show that the allegations contained therein are
vague and are based on conjectures and surmises and, thus, are not
sustainable in law. The same is also the situation in the statement dated
13.03.2021 of the complainant before the ICC, as recorded in the
Inquiry Report dated 30.04.2021 of the ICC. No date or time or alleged
incidents are given. The surrounding circumstances and the actual
complaint have the complete indication of Honey Trapping against the
applicant yet the authorities shown their interest to find the truth,
which makes it abundantly clear that all forces had joined hands to
prosecute and persecute the applicant. As far as the vagueness of the
allegations is concerned, the applicant relied on the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty Vs.
State of West Bengal, AIR 1971 SC 752, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court granted relief to the applicant therein on the ground that the
allegations were vague. Hence, initiation of disciplinary proceedings,
based on the report of the ICC, being void needs to be quashed.
[s]. The ICC was appointed in violation of Section 4(3)(b) of the Act,
2013 and also in violation of the well-settled law. The ICC did not
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
20

allow adequate opportunity to applicant to defend properly. It is well-
settled that if the charge is serious in nature, the standard of proof
required is 'beyond reasonable doubt' vide Govind Singh v. Harchand
Kaur , (2011) 2 SCC 621]. In cases of sexual harassment, criminal
liability is also there. Therefore, the allegations against the applicant
had to be proved to the hilt, which has not been done in the present
case.
[t]. The judgment dated 16.05.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 7592 of 2001 [ Dr. Pushkar Saxena Vs.
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others ] also provides that the ICC
has to follow the procedure provided in Rule 14 of Rules, 1965 for
conducting the enquiry into complaints of sexual harassment and
violation of the same would nullify the enquiry. This judgment is
squarely applicable to the present case, inasmuch as the enquiry
against the applicant was conducted in complete violation of Rule 14 of
Rules, 1965. The ICC did not inform the applicant that he was entitled
to a Defence Assistant. The enquiry was conducted behind the back of
the Applicant. The applicant was not given a chance to cross-examine
the witnesses. The applicant was forced to depose in the enquiry and to
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
21

present his defence before the closure of the case of the prosecution.
Further, there was no Mandatory Questioning of the applicant in terms
of Sub-Rule (18) of Rule 14 of Rules, 1965. Also, no daily order sheets
of the enquiry were prepared and supplied to the applicant.
[u]. The major penalty charge sheet dated 11.12.2021 is bad in law,
as the same has not been signed by the Disciplinary Authority and
further, the same is not in the proper Format. In this regard, reference
is made to the order dated 27.11.2018 of the CAT, Principal Bench, New
Delhi in OA No. 4324 of 2018 ( Shekher Srivastava Vs. Union of
India ).
[v]. In stating so, Ld. Counsel for the applicant has tried to convince
us that there has been infraction of procedural regularity and gross
violation of principles of natural justice, proceeding further in the
matter by the authorities would be nothing but a clear case of
harassment to the applicant and, therefore, by applying the principle,
justice should not only be done but seem to be done, there is a need to
stop the issues involved in this OA by judicial intervention by this
Bench.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
22

5. After considering the points raised by the respective parties, we
have perused the documents placed in support thereof and also gone
through the Act, 2013, DoP&T OMs, and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 vis-a-
vis the report of the ICC and the charge sheet issued under Rule 14 of
the CCS Rules, 1965. In the case of Vishaka and Ors Vs State of

Rajasthan and Ors, (JT 1997 (7) SC 384), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court had laid down the guidelines and norms to be observed to
prevent sexual harassment of working women. In compliance of the
aforesaid decision, guidelines/norms as fished out in the aforesaid
decision were circulated by Department of Personnel & Training vide
OM No. 11013/10/97-Estt.(A) dated 13.02.1998 for strict compliance
by the Ministries/ Departments. Amendments in Central Civil Services
(Conduct) Rules, 1964 were also carried out by inserting Rule 3-C
declaring Sexual Harassment of Working Women as a misconduct, vide
Notification No. 11013/10/97-Estt.(A) dated 13.02.1998 published in
Gazette of India as G.S.R. 49 dated 07.03.1998. Subsequently, Central
Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 were also
amended by inserting a provision below sub-rule 2 of Rule 14 in
connection with treatment of the Complaint Committee as Inquiring
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
23

Authority and to follow the procedure as laid down in these Rules to
hold inquiry into the complaints of Sexual Harassment. This was
notified vide Notification No. 11012/5/2001-Estt.A dated 01.07.2004
and published in Gazette of India vide G.S.R. No. 225 dated 10.07.2004.
Later on, the 'Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was promulgated on 22.04.2013.
The 'Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013' were notified on 09.12.2013.
The Act and the Rules framed thereunder provide a redressal
mechanism for handling cases of sexual harassment of women at
workplace. Thus, the provisions relating to handling the cases of sexual
harassment of women at workplace are scattered across SHWW (PPR)
Act, Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, etc. In addition, a
number of executive instructions covering different aspects of this
issue have been issued from time to time.
st
6. 1 contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the
complaint made by the ‘Y’ does not come strictly within the
connotation of Sexual Harassment and thus, the same was rightly
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
24

recorded by the ICC at the first instance. However, on remand enquiry,
the ICC submitted its report contrary to the report submitted at the
first instance. In this regard, it may be noted that the Hon’ble Apex
Court in many cases evaluated the meaning of ‘ sexual harassment ’
under the POSH Act and held that the allegation of ‘sexual harassment’
does not only include unwelcome acts or behaviour of sexual nature
but also ' any circumstance connected with such act or behaviour ', like
creating an offensive or hostile work environment, threatening about
employment status. In this regard, we would like to place on record
relevant portion of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in
the case of VANEETA PATNAIK –vs- NIRMAL KANTI CHAKRABARTI &
th
ORS dated 12 September, 2025 in CIVIL APPEAL NO…….OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17936 of 2025) runs thus:
“10. ‘Sexual harassment’ is defined in Section 2(n) of the
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 to include any one or
more of the unwelcome act or behaviour (whether directly
or by implication) such as physical contact and advances;
or a demand or request for sexual favours; or making
sexually coloured remarks; or showing pornography; or
any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal
conduct of sexual nature.

11. Section 3 of the POSH Act, while providing that no
woman shall be subjected to sexual harassment at any
workplace, describes certain circumstances that would
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
25

amount as an act or behaviour of sexual harassment, i.e.,
implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her
employment; or implied or explicit threat of detrimental
treatment in her employment; or implied or explicit threat
about her present or future employment status; or
interference with her work or creating an intimidating or
offensive or hostile work environment for her; or
humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety.

12. On a combined reading of both the above provisions, it
is manifest that not only the unwelcome act or behaviour in
the form of physical contact or advances, a demand or
request for sexual favours, making sexually coloured
remarks, showing pornography or any unwelcome
physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature
but also any other circumstances connected with the act or
behaviour of sexual harassment, like implied or explicit
promise of preferential treatment in employment, threat
about the present and future employment status,
interference with work or creating an intimidating,
offensive or hostile work environment or subjecting to
humiliating treatment which may likely affect her health or
safety, would also amount to acts or behaviour of sexual
harassment.”

The ICC after going through the complaint submitted its report by
making observation as the complaint raised fingers towards ‘sexual
harassment’ and based on the report of ICC, charge sheet has been
issued to the applicant giving him further opportunity to have his say
and, thus, he has still got opportunity to have his say in detail and,
therefore, at this stage, we restrain from interfering on the ground that
the complaint does not come within the meaning of sexual harassment.

RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
26

nd
7. 2 ground of submission of the applicant is that the complaint
made by ‘Y’ was beyond the period of limitation provided in the statute
and thus, the same ought not to have been entertained and enquired
into. Section 9 of the Act postulates that any aggrieved woman may
make a complaint, in writing, of sexual harassment at the work place to
the Local Committee within a period of three months from the date of
incident, and in the case of series of incidents, within a period of three
months from the date of the last incident. The second proviso to Section
9 provides that the LCC may for reasons to be recorded in writing,
extend the time of making the complaint not exceeding three months, if
it is satisfied that the circumstances prevailing prevented the woman
from filing of the complaint within the period prescribed. We find that
though applicant got opportunity to contest on the ground of limitation,
he failed to do so before the ICC. Further, on examination we find that
the complaint was of dated 13.02.2021 wherein she had also narrated
th
the happenings started from 10 February, 2021 till submission of
complaint. Thus, in strictest sensu , the complaint made by ‘Y’ comes
within the provision enshrined under the statute. The incidents of
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
27

alleged sexual harassment be forgiven but allowed to haunt the
wrongdoer forever. Hence, this plea of the applicant is over ruled.
rd
8. 3 contention of the Applicant is that after remand, the
Committee which recorded the statements on 13.03.2021 and
20.03.2021 and submitted the report on 30.04.2021 is invalid because,
after expiry of three years terms the Committee was not in existence
and thus, action taken by the said Committee is non est in the eyes of
law and thus, departmental chagesheet issued based on such report
also collapses on its own. This submission was contested by the
respondents in stating that the validity of the Committee was extended
vide order dated 07.04.2021 retrospectively w.e.f. 12.01.2021. Further,
it is submitted that on 13.03.2021 and 20.03.2021 when the statements
were record, even it is accepted that there was no validity of the
Committee, but when the Committee submitted its report on
30.04.2021, the Committee was already validated vide order
07.04.2021 and, therefore, the stand of the applicant is not acceptable.
We have examined this aspect of the matter in great detail and we find
that the authority and validity of the order dated 07.04.2021 extending
the validity of the Committee from 12.01.2021 has not been questioned
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
28

by the applicant in this OA. Thus, when the competent authority
extended the validity of the Committee, the argument advanced by the
applicant that the report of the Committee has no force falls flat by
following the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Delhi Technological University Vs B.S. Rawat, 2026 INSC 797,
wherein it has been held as under:
8. Ratification, in its ordinary legal signification, denotes the
confirmation or adoption, by a person or body possessing the
requisite authority, of an act earlier done on its behalf without
such authority, or done irregularly, so that the act is treated
as valid from its inception. Black’s Law Dictionary describes
ratification as “the confirmation of a previous act done either
by the party himself or by another”. The doctrine finds its
origin in the maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur, a
subsequent ratification is equivalent to a prior command,
refined further by the maxim omnis ratihabitio retrotrahitur et
mandato priori aequiparatur, which imports the principle of
relation- back: a ratified act is deemed valid from the date of
the original, unauthorised act, and not merely from the date
of ratification.
19. This Court has, on more than one occasion, applied the
doctrine in the above sense3. From these decisions,
following legal principles about doctrine of ratification can
be culled out:
(i) Ratification means making a previously invalid act
valid. It is the subsequent approval of an act that was
initially done without authority.
(ii) A subsequent ratification is equivalent to prior
authority.
Once the competent authority ratifies an act, the law
treats it as though the authority had existed from the
beginning. This is based on the maxim ratihabitio
mandato aequiparatur.
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
29

(iii) Ratification operates retrospectively. It relates
back to the date on which the original act was
performed and cures the defect arising from the
absence of prior authority.
(iv) Only the competent authority can ratify an invalid
act. The authority which is legally empowered to
perform the act must itself approve or adopt the
earlier unauthorised action. Sri Parmeshwari Prasad
Gupta v. Union of India, (1973) 2 SCC 543; High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan v. P.P. Singh & Anr., (2003)
4 SCC 239; Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. v.
Sunil S/o Pundikarao Pathak, (2006) 5 SCC 96,
National Institute of Technology & Anr. v. Pannalal
Choudhury & Anr., (2015) 11 SCC 669 and Municipal
Commissioner, Jamnagar Municipal
Corporation (supra).
(v) Express approval of the earlier action is sufficient.
It is not necessary for the competent authority to pass
a fresh order. A resolution or decision approving the
earlier unauthorised act amounts to valid ratification.
(vi) Ratification cures defects of authority, not acts that
are inherently illegal. The doctrine applies where the
act could have been validly performed by the
competent authority in the first place. It cannot
validate an act that is void because it is prohibited by
law or beyond the power of the authority.”

th
9. 4 submission of the Ld. Counsel for the applicant is that after
the ICC report, there is no justification for issuance of charge sheet
under Rule 14 of CCs (CCA) Rules, 1965 and, therefore, initiation of
disciplinary proceeding Rule 14 of CCs (CCA) Rules, 1965 is liable to be
quashed. This submission of the applicant was contested by the Ld
Counsel for the respondents by stating that there is no prohibition
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
30

under the rules for initiation of the charge sheet if it is decided to do so
by the Disciplinary Authority. It is also stated that charge sheet is not a
punishment rather, through the charge sheet opportunity is given to
the delinquent to have his say. Therefore, the challenge on this ground
made by the applicant to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings is to
be negative. We have examined this submission with reference to the
provision made under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and law. In this regard, it
is apt to place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Dr. Sohail Malik Vs Union of India & Anr ., (2025) SCC OnLine
2751, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court dealt with the various steps by
which the inquiry is required to be conducted by the ICC and,
thereupon, submit a report and further opined that based on such
inquiry report, the employer of the delinquent employee and the
disciplinary authority has to decide as to whether disciplinary
proceedings was warranted or not and that if the disciplinary authority
of the employee was of the opinion that disciplinary proceedings are
warranted, then a charge-sheet has to be issued to the delinquent
employee. In the light of the law discussed above, we find that the
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'

O.A.No. 260/00061 of 2022
31

challenge to the charge sheet issued based on the ICC report is bound
to dive down and is, accordingly, rejected.
10. From the record, it is not apparent as to whether, on receipt of
the charge sheet dated 11.12.2021, the applicant submitted his defence
statement. However, he filed this OA challenging the said charge sheet
dated 11.12.2021. Meanwhile, considerable time has already been
elapsed. In the said circumstances, for the ends of justice, the
Disciplinary Authority of the applicant is hereby directed that in case
the applicant submits reply to the charge sheet within a period of 30
days hence, the same may be accepted and considered without being
influenced on any of the observations made in this order. If, in
consideration of the reply, it is decided to proceed with the inquiry, the
DA must see that the proceedings are ended within an outer limit of six
months.
11. In the result, with the observations made above, this OA stands
disposed of. MAs, if any, stand disposed of. Costs made easy.

(Pramod Kumar Das) (Sudhi Ranjan Mishra)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judl.)


RK/PS
RAVI KUMAR
2026.09.07
10:38:15 +05'30'