A.K. Mandal v. Engineering Project India Ltd

VEENA BIRBAL, J. July 12th ,2010 ssb

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 12th July, 2010 + W.P.(C) 4447/2010 & CM Nos. 8841-42/2010 A.K.Mandal ..... Petitioner Through Mr.G.D.Bhandari, Adv. -versus- The Engineering Project (India) Ltd. & ors ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Rahul Gupta, Adv. CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Veena Birbal, J (oral) By way of present petition, petitioner has challenged the final show cause notice dated 18th June, 2010 by which he has been asked to give his explanation within 15 days from the receipt of the aforesaid notice, failing which it would be presumed that he has nothing to explain and has accepted the penalty. The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as under:- Petitioner was appointed as a Driver with respondent on 8th February, 1975 and was confirmed on 20th February, 1976 and later on was promoted as Senior Driver cum Mechanic. For the past 32- 33 years, he has been working with respondent. Petitioner has alleged that Smt.Kain, another employee of respondents was having social/friendly and family relation with the petitioner. On 13.10.2008, Smt. Anita Kain addressed a confidential letter to respondent no. 1 annexing therewith anonymous letter dated 27.09.2008 and alleged that the same is written by petitioner to her. It is alleged that language and tenor of the anonymous letter addressed to Smt.Anita Kain amounts to sexual harassment at work place. Respondent constituted a "Sexual Harassment Committee". The said committee on the basis of opinion of "Hand Writing Expert" concluded the proceedings and gave its report dated 22nd January, 2009. The Committee confirmed that handwriting of the letter was of the petitioner. The Committee gave a finding that the language and tenor of the letter amounts to sexual harassment of women at work place under Rule 5.34 of Conduct Discipline & appeal Rules, 1999 of respondent. The Committee was further of the view that action needs to be taken against the petitioner as per the conduct rules of the company. On 20th March, 2009, a charge sheet was served on the petitioner with the charge that petitioner had written an anonymous letter dated 27th September, 2008, the language and tenor of which amounts to sexual harassment/misconduct. Petitioner submitted its report denying the allegations and contended that finding of the "Sexual Harassment Committee" was malicious and denied having written any such letter. Petitioner also requested for supply of anonymous letter dated 27th September, 2008. Thereafter, petitioner gave another representation dated 17th May, 2009 for supply of documents. Respondents vide their letter dated 12th June, 2009 supplied photocopies of the documents and report of the Sexual Harassment Committee. Petitioner also demanded evidence recorded before the Sexual Harassment Committee. However, respondents informed him that no statement was recorded by the "Sexual Harassment Committee". It is alleged that petitioner was also not supplied with attested copy of complaint and copy of anonymous letter despite various letters written to Inquiry Officer in this regard. On 26th August, 2009 the Inquiry Officer submitted its report giving the findings against the petitioner. It is contended that enquiry conducted was in violation of principles of natural justice. On 18.06.2010, final show cause notice has been issued thereby asking the petitioner to explain as to why penalty of removal from services which would not be a disqualification for future employment should not be imposed on you. Petitioner has been asked to give his explanation within 15 days from the receipt of aforesaid final show cause notice. It is this final show cause notice which is under challenge by filing the present petition. It is alleged that Smt. Kain had earlier also lodged a complaint agains