Case Brief
Name of Court: High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
Parties: Narinder Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab & Another
Case No.: CWP No. 10993 of 2016
Date of Order: 24.07.2023
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Facts:
X filed a complaint against Y alleging that Y had physically molested X. X also alleged that Y had terminated her services because she refused to give into his advances. Inquiry was conducted and the allegations raised against Y were proved to be true. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued, and Y’s services were proposed to be terminated. Aggrieved, Y filed a petition seeking for the charge sheet, inquiry report, and show cause notice seeking explanation why his services should not be terminated to be quashed.
Before the conclusion of the domestic matter, Y also attained superannuation.
Law:
- Sexual Harassment of Women (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013
- Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970
- The Government Employees Conduct Rules, 1966
Analysis:
Y made the following submissions:
- Y was not allowed to cross examine X while the preliminary inquiry was being conducted. Therefore, the preliminary reports have no value as the evidence was not recorded in Y’s presence.
- Basic principles of natural justice have not been followed.
- 9 ladies had given in writing that nothing of the kind as alleged had ever happened.
- X was removed along with other resource persons as funds had not been released.
- There was non application of mind by the punishing authority.
- Allegations of sexual harassment ought to have been dealt with under the POSH Act, not the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules.
- Inquiry should have been conducted by an internal committee, and not by a male inquiry officer.
- Punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged.
The Respondents made the following submissions:
- Y had been given opportunities to prove his case and explain his innocence.
- No final order had been passed yet.
The court made the following observations:
- Allegations against Y are not limited to that of sexual harassment at workplace, but also related to misuse of powers such as wrongfully terminating a resource person, appointment of Y’s own wife and brother-in-law as resource persons.
- Allegations of misuse of power could not have been dealt under the POSH Act. However, there is no embargo on the disciplinary authority under Rules of 1970 to conduct inquiry in respect of sexual harassment allegations.
- Y has been issued a show cause notice. However, Y was projected the show cause notice as a notice for termination or removal from service. Y could have raised his objections before the disciplinary authority.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition and held that it was not maintainable, as no final order had been passed by the disciplinary authority and Y had rushed to the court merely upon being served with a show cause notice of proposed punishment.
The disciplinary authority was prevented from passing a final order due to the court’s intervention. Moreover, Y had attained superannuation by then. Therefore, the court restored the position as it stood on the date when the writ petition was filed. The disciplinary authority was directed to ignore the fact that Y had retired in between and clarified to be free to impose any of the punishment as available under the Rules of 1970. The court also made it clear that no decision shall be taken on releasing the pension till a decision is taken on the inquiry.
By – Divya R, Trainer & External Member, Chief Research & Development Officer