Disciplinary Authority may order de novo inquiry if Internal Complaints Committee report is procedurally vitiated

The applicant, a Resource Person at Doordarshan Kendra (DDK) Bhopal, filed a complaint on 06.04.2015 alleging sexual harassment by Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.

An Internal Complaints Committee (First ICC) conducted an inquiry and submitted a report on 26.06.2015, finding the charges proved and recommending disciplinary action against the respondents and the applicant's appointment as a Transmission Executive.

The Disciplinary Authority (DA) rejected the report, citing procedural irregularities—specifically the absence of an external member, lack of cross-examination opportunities, and failure to follow Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

The DA ordered a de novo (fresh) inquiry and constituted subsequent ICCs (Second and Third ICC).

The applicant challenged the legality of the de novo inquiry and sought implementation of the First ICC's recommendations.

1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority has the legal power to reject an ICC report and order a de novo inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

2. Whether the constitution of the subsequent ICCs was legally valid.

Section 13(3) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which mandates that proved misconduct be dealt with according to applicable service rules.

Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and the DOPT OM dated 21.07.2009, which deem the ICC to be the Inquiring Authority for disciplinary proceedings.

Section 4(5)(d) of the 2013 Act, which empowers the employer to remove and replace ICC members/presiding officers for abuse of position.

The Tribunal reasoned that since Section 13(3) of the 2013 Act refers disciplinary action to the existing service rules, the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, are applicable.

Under Rule 15(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, a Disciplinary Authority possesses the inherent prerogative to remit a case for further inquiry or a fresh inquiry if the initial proceedings are found to be vitiated by fundamental legal or procedural errors.

The court noted that the First ICC report suffered from fatal flaws, including the absence of a mandatory external member (violating Section 7(c) of the Act) and the denial of cross-examination (violating principles of natural justice).

The Tribunal further found that the power to reconstitute a committee is inherent under Section 4 of the Act, and once the composition of the ICC is legally changed due to the removal/replacement of a chairperson, a fresh inquiry is a logical and legal necessity.

The court vacated the interim stay on the inquiry proceedings and directed the respondents to conclude the fresh inquiry within the statutory timeframe and the applicant’s prayer for implementation of the First ICC's recommendations (including the job appointment) was denied.