Avijeet Mullick vs Uoi And Others

$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2950/2010
Date of Decision : 28.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:

AVIJEET MULLICK .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shiv Mehrotra, Advocate along
with petitioner in person.

versus

UOI AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. B S Shukla, CGSC with Mr.
Dashmesh Tripathi, Advocate for R1.
Ms. Nihaarika Jauhari with Mr.
Manish Kumar, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

JUDGEMENT

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner has instituted the present petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 13.01.2010
passed by the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI), whereby he was
removed from service, and the order dated 09.04.2010 dismissing his appeal.
Consequently, the petitioner prays for reinstatement with all consequential
benefits including arrears of pay and allowances.
2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as an
Assistant in the Rehabilitation Council of India in the year 1999. On
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:01:54
W.P.(C) 2950/2010 Page 1 of 5

17.04.2009, three female colleagues of the petitioner submitted a complaint
to the authorities alleging sexual harassment at the workplace. The
allegation was that the petitioner had printed a pornographic image from his
computer on a shared printer located at the complainants' workstation.
Consequently, the petitioner was placed under suspension, and the matter
was referred to the Sexual Harassment Committee on 27.04.2009 under the
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
(CCS (CCA) Rules).

3. The Committee submitted its report on 24.11.2009, holding the
petitioner guilty of sexual harassment. A copy of the report was furnished to
the petitioner on 09.12.2009, and he submitted his defence on 14.12.2009,
denying the findings. Thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority passed the
impugned order of removal from service, which was affirmed by the
Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.04.2010.
4. The petitioner challenges the impugned order mainly on the ground
that he was not furnished with any relevant documents, including the
complaint against him, nor was he afforded an opportunity to cross‑examine
the witnesses relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority and thus there is a
violation of Rule 14(14) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The petitioner places
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Aureliano
1
Fernandes v. State of Goa and Ors . He also places reliance in the case of
2
Vineeth V.V. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. & Ors. decision of the
Kerala High Court.
5. The respondents, represented by learned counsel Mr. B S Shukla and

1
2023 INSC 527
2
2024:KER:21733
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:01:54
W.P.(C) 2950/2010 Page 2 of 5

Ms. Nihaarika Jauhari, oppose the submissions. They contend that the
enquiry was in accordance with law and the petitioner was extended full
opportunity to defend his case, and therefore, it does not give any
opportunity to the petitioner to raise any grievance of non-extension of
opportunity of hearing. Mr. Shukla relies on the decision of the Supreme
3
Court in the cases of State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma .
6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have
perused the record.

7. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prof. Bidyug
4
Chakraborty v. Delhi University & Ors. has held that non-furnishing of the
documents and material on the basis of which the enquiry report was
finalised was in contravention of the CCS (CCA) Rules. Paragraph 8 of the
said decision is extracted as under:
“8. Admittedly, annexures/appendices to the inquiry report were not
supplied to the petitioner, by the committee. Supplying copy of the
inquiry report, without supplying copies of all its annexures/appendices
does not serve the desired purposes and does not fulfil the legal
obligation of the Disciplinary Authority in this regard. The
annexures/appendices constitute an integral part of the Enquiry Report
and cannot be separated from it. Supply of enquiry report without
supplying all its annexures/appendices would therefore amount to not
supplying the copy of the Enquiry Report itself.”

8. The Court has also held that principle of natural justice ought to have
been followed and an opportunity of cross-examination of the complainant
ought to have been given to the petitioner. Paragraph 14 is extracted as
under:
“14. As noted earlier, no opportunity was given to the petitioner for
verbal cross examination of the complainant. A perusal of the inquiry

3
1996 SCC (3) 364
4
W.P.(C) No. 8226/2007
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:01:54
W.P.(C) 2950/2010 Page 3 of 5

report shows that the committee informed the petitioner that he could
cross examine the complainant by giving written questions to the
committee. In our opinion, mere permission to give written questions to
the committee for cross examination of the complainant does not fulfil the
legal requirement on the part of the Inquiring Authority, to give
opportunity to the delinquent to cross examine her. Cross examination by
giving written questions to the inquiring authority can never be as
effective as verbal cross examination and cannot be its proper substitute.
… Denial of opportunity to cross examine the complainant and other
witnesses examined by the committee constitutes gross violation of
principles of natural justice.”

9. Rule 14(17) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, explicitly entitles the
charged employee to cross‑examine the witnesses relied upon by the
department. This position has been firmly reiterated in paragraph 15:
“15. Rule 14(16) of CCS/CCA rules mandates the Disciplinary Authority
to ask the delinquent to state his defence which is to be recorded unless it
is a written statement. Clause 17 of this rule requires the Inquiring
Authority to then call upon the delinquent to produce his evidence. …
The committee was required not only to give an opportunity to the
petitioner to produce his witnesses but those witnesses were to be cross
examined by the petitioner and not by the committee.”

10. Upon a careful scrutiny of the material placed before the Court, it is
evident that the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of the complaint or
any of the documents that formed the basis of the allegations. It also stands
unrebutted that the petitioner was not permitted to cross‑examine any of the
witnesses whose testimonies were relied upon by the Sexual Harassment
Committee in arriving at the finding of guilt. The denial of such an
opportunity violates the principles of natural justice and is a breach of the
mandatory provisions of Rule 14(14) and Rule 14(17) of the CCS (CCA)
Rules.
11. Accordingly, the impugned orders of termination dated 13.01.2010
and the dismissal of the appeal dated 09.04.2010 are hereby set aside. The
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:01:54
W.P.(C) 2950/2010 Page 4 of 5

petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with all consequential
benefits.
12. As regards the question of back wages, this Court notes that the
petitioner was hale and hearty at the time of termination and there is no
affidavit placed on record by him that he was not gainfully employed during
the period of termination. The normal rule of reinstatement with full back
wages is not absolute. In Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior
5
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya , Supreme Court held that while reinstatement
with full back wages is the normal rule in cases of wrongful termination, the
relief of back wages is discretionary and depends upon the facts of each
case.
13. The impugned order has been set aside on account of non-compliance
with procedural requirements. When termination is set aside on procedural
grounds, the Court generally grants liberty to the employer to undertake a
fresh enquiry. However, in the instant case, the complaint is of the year 2009
and after the lapse of about seventeen years, it is not practically possible to
conduct a full-fledged enquiry. The liberty to revisit the enquiry is,
therefore, not required. Since the petitioner was hale and hearty, no back
wages are awarded. The petitioner shall be reinstated within sixty days from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order..
14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
APRIL 28, 2026
tr

5
(2013) 10 SCC 324
Signature Not Verified
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV
Signed By:AMIT KUMAR
SHARMA
Signing Date:12.05.2026
20:01:54
W.P.(C) 2950/2010 Page 5 of 5