Court Upholds Validity of Disciplinary Proceedings Despite Procedural Challenges by Petitioner
The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Sh. Sapan Suman challenging the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him following a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace. The petitioner argued against the validity of proceedings citing procedural irregularities and questioned the jurisdiction of the inquiry committee. However, the Court ruled that the writ petition was premature as the disciplinary proceedings were still ongoing and no final decision had been made.
The petition was filed against the Union of India and other respondents, contesting the issuance of a show-cause notice and the inquiry report that found allegations of sexual harassment against the petitioner to be substantiated. The petitioner claimed that the inquiry committee was improperly constituted and that procedural guidelines were violated during the proceedings.
The Court, presided over by Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan, clarified that writ petitions challenging show-cause notices in disciplinary proceedings are generally premature unless the notice is issued without jurisdiction or is patently illegal. The Court found that the inquiry committee, constituted under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, operated within the framework of the law, and the procedural irregularities cited by the petitioner did not amount to jurisdictional defects.
The petitioner’s contention that the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of Personnel and Training in 2015 should retrospectively apply to invalidate earlier proceedings was dismissed by the Court, which emphasized that such administrative guidelines apply prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had actively participated in the inquiry process and failed to demonstrate any prejudice suffered due to the alleged procedural lapses. The Court reaffirmed the importance of expeditious disposal of sexual harassment complaints to uphold natural justice and protect the rights of complainants.
The judgment highlights the judiciary's stance on maintaining procedural integrity while ensuring timely resolution of sensitive workplace harassment cases. The Court reiterated that procedural rules should not hinder the objectives of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013, and that domestic inquiries are fact-finding processes designed to uphold principles of natural justice.
Bottom Line:
The writ petition challenging the show-cause notice or Article of Charge in disciplinary proceedings is ordinarily premature unless the notice is wholly without jurisdiction or patently illegal. Compliance with procedural rules like issuance of Articles of Charges, when the complaint and allegations are already provided, is considered a procedural irregularity and not a jurisdictional defect, especially when no prejudice is shown.
Statutory provision(s):
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The judgment reflects the Court's commitment to balancing procedural correctness with the substantive rights of individuals involved in disciplinary proceedings, while emphasizing the need for timely justice in cases of workplace harassment.
Sh. Sapan Suman v. Union of India, (Delhi)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2846110
