Termination Set Aside for Denial of Cross-Examination and Non-Furnishing of Documents in Sexual Harassment Inquiry

The petitioner, an Assistant at the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) since 1999, was accused of sexual harassment by three female colleagues on 17.04.2009 for allegedly printing a pornographic image on a shared printer

He was suspended and the matter was referred to a Sexual Harassment Committee under the CCS (CCA) Rules

On 24.11.2009, the Committee found him guilty

Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority removed him from service on 13.01.2010, and his appeal was dismissed on 09.04.2010

The petitioner challenged these orders on the grounds of procedural irregularities, specifically the non-furnishing of the complaint and denial of cross-examination

1. Whether the non-furnishing of the complaint and relevant documents to the delinquent employee violates the CCS (CCA) Rules and principles of natural justice?

2. Whether the denial of the right to orally cross-examine witnesses during a sexual harassment inquiry vitiates the disciplinary proceedings?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement and back wages upon the setting aside of a termination order on procedural grounds?

The court primarily applied Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, specifically Rule 14(14) regarding the production of evidence and Rule 14(17) regarding the right to cross-examine witnesses

The court relied on Prof. Bidyug Chakraborty v. Delhi University, which established that annexures to an inquiry report are integral and their non-supply amounts to non-supply of the report itself

The court further cited Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa regarding procedural fairness

Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, which clarifies that while reinstatement is the norm for wrongful termination, back wages are discretionary and not absolute

The court found that the inquiry was fundamentally flawed as the petitioner was never provided with the actual complaint or the underlying documents used to find him guilty

Applying the precedent from Prof. Bidyug Chakraborty, the court reasoned that the failure to provide these materials constituted a gross violation of natural justice

Furthermore, the court observed that the Committee’s requirement for the petitioner to submit written questions instead of conducting a verbal cross-examination did not satisfy the legal requirements of Rule 14(17)

The court highlighted that verbal cross-examination is an essential right that cannot be substituted by written queries

Since the procedural breaches were clear and the incident dated back seventeen years (2009), the court determined that ordering a fresh inquiry was impractical

The Court held that the denial of cross-examination and non-furnishing of documents violated the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules

The respondent was directed to reinstate the petitioner within sixty days. However, the court denied the claim for back wages, noting that the petitioner failed to prove he was not gainfully employed during the period of termination and that the relief is discretionary