Supreme Court on Disciplinary Inquiry

SC on Disciplinary Inquiry and Central Complaint Committee 

Brief: This judgement of Supreme Court highlighted and explained nuances of hearsay evidence, power of Central Committee and Test of Prejudice.  

Case Description 

Union of India & Ors. v. Dilip Paul  

Supreme Court of India 

Case Type: Civil Appeal 

Case No.: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1423 

Date of Order: 06.11.2023 

Bench: D.Y. Chandrachud, CJI., J.B. Pardiwala, J. and Manoj Misra, J.  

Facts 

  1. Complainant X filed a complaint of multiple acts of sexual harassment against the Respondent on 30.08.2011.  
  1. Two inquiries ensued simultaneously, an on-the-spot fact finding inquiry and an inquiry by Frontier Complaints Committee (FLCC). 
  1. Both inquiry reports stated that the allegations could not be substantiated. While FLCC’s report was under consideration, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) constituted a Central Complaints Committee (CCC) to look into the matter.  
  1. CCC had to be formed because FLCC contrasted Clause 9 of Standing Order 2006. As per the clause, since the Respondent was a non-combatised officer (Area Organizer), only CCC could investigate into the complaint.  
  1. Complainant filed a second complaint on 18.09.2012 that consisted of additional allegations, documents, and another anonymous complaint made against Respondent in 2011. CCC initiated an inquiry into the complaint.  
  1. Meanwhile, MHA annulled FLCC’s report citing that its chairperson held a rank equivalent to the Respondent, and it was not allowed as per Standing Order 2006.  
  1. Respondent appealed against constitution of CCC and annulment of FLCC’s report before Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The tribunal held FLCC’s constitution to be faulty and did not comment on CCC. However, it directed that the proceeding should wrap up within 4 months. 
  1. CCC found Respondent as guilty and submitted its report to MHA.  
  1. Respondent superannuated during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings and was granted provisional pension without retirement gratuity.  
  1. Based on CCC’s recommendations, MHA passed an order and imposed the penalty of “withholding 50% of Respondent’s pension on permanent basis”.  
  1. While CCC’s investigation was still pending, Respondent filed a writ petition against CAT’s judgement before High Court. However, in meantime, MHA imposed the penalty. Respondent amended his petition and challenged the final decision along with CAT’s judgement.  
  1. The Guwahati High Court set aside the imposed penalty. The instant petition challenged the same order. 

Issues 

  1. Whether CCC committed egregious error with its inquiry into second complaint dated 18.09.2012? 
  1. Whether CCC committed egregious error when it put questions before the witnesses during the departmental inquiry? 
  1. Whether the current matter is a case of ‘No evidence’? 
  1. Whether High Court committed egregious error in passing the impugned order? 

Laws Involved 

  1. Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 
  1. Standing Orders, 2006 
  1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 

Appellant’s Arguments 

  1. There has been no violation of principles of natural justice.  
  1. Respondent was given all opportunities to defend his case. 
  1. No prejudice was caused to the Respondent from the non-supply of on-the-spot inquiry and FLCC’s inquiry reports. 
  1. Punishment imposed is proportionate to Respondent’s offence.  

Respondent’s Arguments 

  1. High Court’s judicial review catered to the decision-making process and not the decision.  
  1. Rule 15 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 imposes a restriction on holding of 2nd inquiry.  
  1. The original complaint dated 30.08.2011 had two allegations. CCC incorporated the second complaint dated 18.09.2012 and extrapolated it to 10 allegations. Although tasked with investigating first complaint, it overstepped its jurisdiction with its inquiry into the second complaint.  
  1. Complaint dated 30.08.2011 was furnished to Respondent but not as article of charge. 
  1. CCC played the role of prosecutor. It conducted examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses. Thus, it vitiated its proceedings.  
  1. CCC recorded that there were no witnesses who had specific knowledge of the listed events. Further, allegations stipulated that Respondent called Complainant at odd hours and that too for long duration. However, no record was produced. CCC had accepted the allegation solely on the assumption that Complainant did not gain any advantage from a false complaint.  
  1. Respondent did not have any blemish in his record and was a decorated officer. Initial inquiries exonerated him. The last inquiry was conducted to victimize the Respondent. 

Court’s Analysis  

  1. (H3) With Regards to Applicable Statues 
  • Central Civil Service Rules (CCS Rules) underwent several amendments post the decisions in Vishaka & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(1997) 6 SCC 241] and Medha Kotwal Lele & Ors. V. Union of India [(2013) 1 SCC 297]. These amendments made sexual harassment punishable with major penalties. 
  • Rule 14 (2) of 1965 CCS Rules provides that inquiry into sexual harassment complaint under Standing Order 2006 must be made as per procedure mentioned in 1965 CCS Rules. The intention is to create flexibility with a balance between sensitivity and fairness in the proceedings. 
  • Judicial review in matters of disciplinary proceedings is limited to scrutiny of decision-making process. Court undertaking the review should not sway on hyper technicalities or irrelevant discrepancies [relied on Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, [(1999) 1 SCC 759]]. 

Also Read: Importance of Service Rules in POSH Inquiry 

Importance Of Service Rules When Dealing With POSH Act
  1. With Regards to CCC’s jurisdiction over Second Complaint 
  • CCC owes its existence to Standing Order 2006 and not the complaint. Therefore, it cannot be said that its investigation should be limited to the first complaint. 
  • There is nothing within the provisions of CCS Rules or Standing Orders that inhibits complainants from filing direct complaint to CCC or from filing subsequent or additional complaints.  
  • Second complaint was filed after the constitution of CCC and before its first hearing.  
  • With reference to State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh [(1977) 2 SCC 491], it was observed that strict or technical rules of evidence is not imposed on disciplinary proceedings. Hearsay evidence is allowed if it has logical nexus to the complaint and if it is credible.  
  1. With Regards to ‘Test of Prejudice’ 
  • Applying the test of prejudice [provided in State Bank of Patiala & Ors. v. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364]], the Court analysed whether the irregularity of procedure caused prejudice to Respondent’s right to fair hearing.  
  • Respondent had replied to all 10 framed charges against him and was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, him not pleading guilty to allegations in second complaint would not have affected the outcome of the proceedings.  
  1. With Regards to CCC Putting Questions Before Witnesses 
  • There is no statutory or logical bar that restricts Complaint Committee from putting questions before the witnesses. Being an inquiry authority and having almost equivalent power as that of Presiding Officer in a Court, the Committee must be allowed to put questions on its own to conduct a fair and proper inquiry.  
  • Judges across India use Section 165 B of Evidence Act 1872 to put questions before parties and witnesses to understand relevant facts and evidence. It is irrational to disallow a Committee to do the same after equating its procedure with a judge driven judicial proceeding.  

Also Read: Harmonious Interpretation of POSH and Service Rules 

The Calcutta High Court on harmonious reading of the Act and Service Rules
  1. With Regards to Case of ‘No Evidence’ 
  • Standard of proof in departmental inquiry is influenced by preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt.  
  • Inquiries into sexual harassment complaints must be examined on broader probabilities and with reference to entire backdrop of the case.  
  • In present instance, there were few but substantiating evidence to prove the allegations. CCC did not overlook lack of call recordings; it rightly noted that it was not feasible for them to be present despite lapse of years between complaint and incident.  
  • There was also oral evidence by a witness that corroborated complainants claim that Respondent had placed calls to her.  

Conclusion 

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: 

  • High Court erred in concluding that CCC did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the second complaint since there is no legal bar on CCC on undertaking the same.  
  • High Court failed to apply the test of prejudice and mechanically proceeded to set aside the punishment.  
  • High Court erred in understanding of Complaint Committee’s power to place questions before the witnesses for sake of proper inquiry.  
  • Hight Court did not indulge in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, as it was beyond its discretion, and set aside the order on technical pleas of Respondent.  

Therefore, it allowed the appeal and set aside High Court’s impugned order and restored the penalty. However, the Court did opine that multiple inquiries on single complaint cannot ensue on same set of allegations. In this instance, the faulty constitution of FLCC justified the formation of CCC. This point was present in High Court’s decision as well. 

Authored by Ayush Bardhan, Legal Associate 

Tags: No tags

Comments are closed.