WCC report made under Visakha principles before Act's promulgation is not quashable *sua sponte*.

The applicant, K.K. Sasidharan, a former BSNL Telecom Mechanic, challenged an inquiry report (Annexure A1) by the Women's Complaint Committee (WCC), a memorandum of charges (Annexure A2) alleging misconduct, and an order (Annexure A14) rejecting his representation to quash the report.

He commenced service on July 24, 1981, and was promoted in 2005.

The 4th respondent, a colleague, made complaints against him.

On May 6, 2013, a memo was served alleging he abused the 4th respondent.

An order on May 1, 2013, cancelled his quarter allotment based on a committee report, against which he appealed.

He claimed Annexure A1 was never served on him and he only obtained a copy in 2014 via the Central Information Commission.

The O.A. was filed on September 5, 2016, and the applicant retired on November 30, 2016.

Respondents argued the O.A. was belated, citing the 90-day appeal period under Section 18(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

They also stated that Annexure A1 report recommended vacation of quarters due to unauthorized constructions, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated when he refused to vacate.

The applicant did not cooperate with the subsequent inquiry, leading to a 2% pension cut for one year, which has since expired.

1. Whether the Original Application challenging Annexures A1, A2, and A14 is barred by limitation.

2. Whether the Women's Complaint Committee had jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint and whether Annexure A1 is valid given the alleged absence of "sexual harassment" and procedural irregularities.

3. Whether Annexure A2, the memorandum of charges, and subsequent disciplinary proceedings are vitiated because the 5th respondent, who chaired the WCC that issued Annexure A1, also issued Annexure A2 in a different capacity.

4. Whether the O.A. has become infructuous due to the applicant's retirement and the expired pension cut.

The court considered the limitation period under Section 18(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

It noted its inapplicability as the Act came into force after the alleged incidents and the Annexure A1 report.

It relied on the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Visakha v. State of Rajasthan [(1997) 6 SCC 241] as the relevant legal framework for incidents before December 9, 2013.

The principle of natural justice, specifically "nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" (no man ought to be a judge in his own cause), was also considered.

The Tribunal found the O.A. was not barred by limitation, accepting the applicant's contention that he received Annexure A1 only in November 2014 through an order from the Chief Information Commissioner, making the filing within due time.

It clarified that the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, were not applicable as Annexure A1 was filed on April 27, 2013, and the Act was notified on December 9, 2013, thus the Visakha guidelines were relevant.

The court observed that Annexure A8 (the complaint) did not contain allegations of sexual harassment as defined under Section 2(n) of the Act, and even the WCC report (Annexure A1) did not contain findings of sexual violations against the applicant.

However, the WCC was within its domain to recommend cancellation of quarter allotment and removal of unauthorized constructions based on its local inspection and gathered materials, which falls within its jurisdiction to make lawful recommendations even if not directly related to sexual harassment.

The court also dismissed the argument that Annexure A2 was vitiated because the 5th respondent issued both Annexure A1 (as WCC Chairperson) and Annexure A2 (as Disciplinary Authority DGM), stating she acted in different capacities and no prejudice was proven, especially since the committee's recommendation was the outcome of collective deliberations.

Finally, the court noted that the disciplinary proceedings had concluded with a 2% cut in pension for one year, which had already expired, rendering the challenge against Annexure A2 largely infructuous as the final outcome was not challenged.

The Tribunal found no valid reasons to quash Annexure A1, stating the WCC acted within its jurisdiction to make recommendations regarding unauthorized constructions.

The challenge against Annexure A2 was deemed largely infructuous as the disciplinary proceedings had concluded with a minor, expired penalty, and the applicant failed to challenge the final outcome.

The argument that the 5th respondent's involvement in both reports violated natural justice was rejected, as she acted in different capacities and no prejudice was established.

The Tribunal held there is no meaning in re-opening these matters due to the lapse of time.