Writ courts shall not interdict departmental proceedings at a preliminary stage absent fundamental jurisdictional flaws.

The Petitioner, a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), faced departmental proceedings following allegations of sexual harassment.

Initially, a preliminary enquiry was held under Standing Order No. 20/2001, resulting in a punishment of stoppage of increment.

However, these proceedings were cancelled as the matter required an enquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”).

A second enquiry was initiated under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949, and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, but was subsequently cancelled because the Petitioner was denied his choice of a Defence Assistant.

A third enquiry was then initiated, which the Petitioner challenged in the present writ petition, alleging bias against the Presiding Officer (Smt. Neeraj Bala) and seeking the physical presence of the complainant for cross-examination.

Whether the ongoing departmental enquiry should be quashed or stayed on the grounds of alleged bias against the Presiding Officer

Whether the court should interfere with departmental proceedings at an interlocutory stage when the proceedings are still in progress

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the complainant physically during the enquiry

The court's reasoning was grounded in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), which mandates specific procedures for sexual harassment complaints.

Procedurally, the court referenced Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 and Rule 27 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which govern departmental enquiries within the force.

The court also applied the established judicial principle of non-interference at the interlocutory stage of departmental proceedings, asserting that such proceedings should not be interdicted unless there is a fundamental flaw in their initiation.

Furthermore, it emphasized the Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing and the right to cross-examine witnesses.

The court observed that the departmental proceedings were currently at a preliminary stage, specifically the inspection of documents.

Regarding the allegation of bias, the court noted the respondents' submission that the Petitioner’s representation against the Presiding Officer had already been rejected by the Competent Authority, with the order to be communicated shortly.

On the issue of cross-examination, the court accepted the respondents' undertaking that the complainant would be produced physically for cross-examination when required by the Petitioner.

Consequently, the court reasoned that since there was no challenge that went to the "very root" of the initiation of the proceedings, judicial intervention was not warranted at this juncture.

The court determined that any grievances regarding the conduct or outcome of the enquiry could be raised by the Petitioner through a challenge to the final order, should it be adverse.

The court held that the Petitioner may challenge the final order if aggrieved, and for this purpose, kept all legal contentions open to be agitated at the appropriate stage.

The court further directed the respondents to communicate the order rejecting the Petitioner's plea of bias within two days and recorded the respondents' assurance that the complainant would join the proceedings physically for cross-examination.