Finding of bias against Internal Complaints Committee vitiates preliminary investigation and subsequent disciplinary proceedings

The applicant, a Senior Chief Medical Officer, was issued a Memorandum dated 30.08.2020 alleging sexual misconduct at the workplace.

An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, which conducted an inquiry based on findings from a Fact-Finding Committee (FFC).

The President of India (the Disciplinary Authority), via order dated 03.05.2023, found merit in the allegations of bias, labeled the ICC's views as "judgmental," and directed the reconstitution of a fresh ICC to complete proceedings within three months.

The respondents reconstituted the ICC but proceeded directly to the second stage of the inquiry (Inquiry Authority) without conducting a fresh preliminary investigation/fact-finding, prompting the applicant to challenge the 2020 Memorandum.

1. Whether the respondents were required to conduct a fresh fact-finding investigation before proceeding to the disciplinary inquiry stage following the President’s finding of bias in the original ICC.

2. Whether the ongoing disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the Memorandum dated 30.08.2020 were legally sustainable in light of the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 03.05.2023.

DoPT Office Memorandum dated 06.07.2015, specifically paragraphs 9 and 10, which delineate the dual role of the ICC under Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Rule establishes that the ICC acts first as an investigating/fact-finding body and subsequently as an Inquiring Authority; any established bias at the investigation stage vitiates the inquiry.

Administrative principle that an order of the Disciplinary Authority (the President) must be implemented in its true spirit.

The Tribunal reasoned that the DoPT instructions clearly mandate a two-stage process: investigation and inquiry.

Since the President’s order dated 03.05.2023 explicitly found the original ICC's findings biased and "judgmental," those preliminary findings became legally untenable.

Consequently, the newly reconstituted ICC could not bypass the "first stage" (fact-finding) and jump to the "second stage" (acting as an Inquiring Authority) based on the tainted results of the first committee.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the applicant had accepted the second-stage status of the inquiry, holding that there is no estoppel against the law and that procedural requirements under Rule 14 are mandatory.

The failure to start the process de novo at the investigation stage violated the principles of natural justice and the President's specific directions.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the impugned Memorandum dated 30.08.2020.

The respondents were directed to provide the applicant with all consequential benefits within six weeks, with liberty to proceed with the matter afresh in strict accordance with the law.