Dr. Ravinder Singh Bedi Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli Thru. Its Executive Director and 3 Others

1. Heard Ms. Madhur Jhawar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate/ Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Varun Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶11

2. The facts of the case have already been noted in detail in the order dated 08.09.2025, which, for the sake of convenience is reproduced hereunder :-

¶12

" 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate/ Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

2. Under challenge is the Office Memorandum dated 12.03.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

¶14

3. The case set forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the petitioner was working as Professor, Head of the Department (Dentistry) in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Raebareli, he was served with a show cause notice dated 05.03.2024, a copy of which is annexure-2 to the petition, along with a complaint and was directed to explain his conduct and submit his reply within 24 hours.

¶15

4. The complaint pertained to certain allegations as levelled by a

¶16

WRIA No. 4783 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

lady Assistant Professor working in the same department of the petitioner, contending that she has been harassed by the petitioner.

¶19

5. The petitioner submitted his reply on 06.03.2024, a copy of which is annexure-3 to the petition, specifically denying the allegations as indicated in the said complaint.

¶20

6. Vide order dated 12.03.2024, a copy of which is annexure-4 to the petition, a notice for inquiry under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013") was given to the petitioner, and he was required to attend the first meeting of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to be held on 16.03.2024.

¶21

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner attended the meeting on the said date and put his signatures after attending the meeting. Thereafter, the petitioner again submitted his reply on 28.04.2024, a copy of which is annexure-5 to the petition, indicating that the provisions of the Act, 2013 are not attracted and that the inquiry was not being conducted as per the rules.

¶22

8. Subsequent thereto, by means of the order impugned, the petitioner has been dismissed from service.

¶23

9. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that after the complaint from the lady Assistant Professor (as indicated above) was received, the Executive Director had forwarded the complaint to the ICC to inquire into the same and report. After conducting the inquiry, as per the finding of the ICC, there were two written complaints, one from the faculty and one from the senior resident along with verbal complaints of the senior resident of the department regarding sexual and mental harassment against the petitioner, which were found to be genuine and proved. Further, as per the DOPT instructions, the said report was treated as an inquiry report and despite the petitioner having denied the charges, yet the disciplinary authority, after considering the report of the Complaints Committee, the representation of the petitioner on the findings of the Complaints Committee and other relevant facts, was of the view that the charges stood proved and accordingly the petitioner was dismissed from service under Rule 15 of the Central

¶24

WRIA No. 4783 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1965") read with Regulation 33(b) of the AIIMS Regulations, 2019.

¶27

10. The further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proviso to Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965 categorically provides that where the complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of Rule 3C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 is made, the Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or Department or office for inquiring into such complaints shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules.

¶28

11. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have failed to adhere to Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965, inasmuch as neither any charge sheet was framed indicating the distinct and definitive charges against the petitioner, nor were any documents or statements of witnesses provided to the petitioner, consequently, the order impugned deserves to be set aside on the ground of violation of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965.

¶29

12. On the other hand, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondents, has argued that considering the proviso to subRule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965, the procedure has been prescribed as per the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015, a copy of which is annexure-SCA-14 to the short counter affidavit, and the said office memorandum has been followed in letter and spirit while holding an inquiry against the petitioner and while passing the order impugned and, thus, there is no infirmity in the same.

¶30

13. He argues that a perusal of the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015 indicates that by means of the said office memorandum, the steps for the conduct of inquiry in complaints of sexual harassment have been spelt out, which have been followed while passing the impugned order.

¶31

WRIA No. 4783 of 2025

¶32

4

¶33

14. However, clause 6 of the said office memorandum provides that as per proviso to Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1965, the Complaints Committee set up in each Ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of these rules. The Complaints Committee, unless a separate procedure has been prescribed , shall hold an inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 14.

¶34

15. Thus, prima facie insertion of clause 6 in the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015 leads to the inference that the said office memorandum itself does not prescribe a separate procedure; rather, it has only indicated the necessity of a separate procedure to be prescribed in case of complaints of sexual harassment.

¶35

16. Another aspect of the matter is that clause 9 of the said office memorandum provides that the Complaints Committee would normally be involved at two stages, the first stage is as per the discussions made in the said office memorandum while the second stage is when the Complaints Committee acts as the inquiring authority. It is further provided that it is necessary that the two roles are clearly understood and the the inquiry is conducted as far as practicable as per Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965 inasmuch as failure to observe the procedure may result in the inquiry getting vitiated .

¶36

17. Likewise, clause 13 of the said office memorandum provides that if the charged officer admits the charges clearly and unconditionally, there will be no need for a formal inquiry against him and further action be taken as per Rule 15 of the Rules, 1965. However, in the instant case, a perusal of the order impugned would indicate that the competent authority has himself indicated that the petitioner has denied the charges as levelled against him, meaning thereby that, prima facie, as per clause 13, a formal inquiry was a must.

¶37

18. Clause 14 of the said office memorandum also indicates that in case the charged officer denied the charges and his reply is not convincing, the charge sheet along with his reply be sent to the Complaints Committee for formal inquiry.

¶38

WRIA No. 4783 of 2025

¶39

5

¶40

19. As indicated above, after the petitioner had been issued with a show cause notice dated 05.03.2024 along with the complaint, he had specifically denied the charges vide his reply dated 06.03.2024, meaning thereby that again clause 14 of the office memorandum may have to be adhered to by the respondents and for holding of an inquiry as provided under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965.

¶41

20. It may be pertained to mention that sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965 categorically provides that where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government Servant under this Rule and Rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall draw up or cause to be drawn up (i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour into definite and distinct articles of charge and (ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge.

¶42

21. In paragraph 10 of the short counter affidavit, it has specifically been indicated that the complaint itself has been treated as a charge sheet and thus, prima facie, it may not adhere to the proviso to sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965.

¶43

22. Upon the same being pointed out, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate/ Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents prays for and is granted three days' time to seek instructions on the following points (a) as to whether any formal charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, (b) is there any separate procedure prescribed apart from the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015 for holding inquiry and (c) if not, as to how the respondents adhered to clause 14 of the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015.

¶44

23. As the matter has been heard at length, as such, list this case on 15.09.2025 at 02:15 PM for further hearing ."

¶45

3. From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it emerges that this Court, after hearing the matter in detail, had summed up the queries to be answered by Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, which were as follows:—

¶46

(a) as to whether any formal charge sheet was issued to the petitioner

¶47

WRIA No. 4783 of 2025

¶48

6

¶49

(b) is there any separate procedure prescribed apart from the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015 for holding inquiry and

¶50

(c) if not, as to how the respondents adhered to clause 14 of the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015.

¶51

4. Today, Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate, states on the basis of instructions that (a) no formal charge sheet was issued to the petitioner; (b) there is no separate procedure prescribed apart from the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015 for holding the inquiry; and (c) the respondents have followed the proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1965"), inasmuch as there was a complaint of sexual harassment against the petitioner and, consequently, following the procedure prescribed in the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015, the inquiry has been held under the proviso to Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965.

¶52

5. Admittedly, there is no other procedure prescribed for holding of an inquiry in terms of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, which were said to be of sexual harassment and thus the respondents professed to have followed the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015 for holding the inquiry. As already discussed in detail in the order dated 08.09.2025, clause 14 of the office memorandum indicates that in case the charged officer denies the charges and his reply is not convincing, the charge sheet along with his reply be sent to the Complaints Committee for formal inquiry, meaning thereby that a charge sheet has to be issued to the delinquent employee, where he denies the charges. In this case, the petitioner has denied the charges vide his reply dated 06.03.2024.

¶53

6. The proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965 provides that the inquiry is to be held in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules, 1965, as far as practicable and thus, once the Rules, 1965 also provide under Rule 14 for issuance of a charge sheet and even the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015 prescribes that where the delinquent employee has denied the charges then as per clause 13, a formal inquiry is a must; and further, clause 9 of the office memorandum also provides that the inquiry is to be conducted

¶54

WRIA No. 4783 of 2025

¶55

7

¶56

as per Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965, inasmuch as failure to observe the procedure may result in the inquiry getting vitiated.

¶57

7. Consequently, it emerges that both under the provisions of Rules, 1965 as well as the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015, which prescribe for following the procedure as laid down under Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965, a charge sheet is a must.

¶58

8. Admittedly, no charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, which thus vitiates the enquiry as stipulated under the provision of the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015, particularly considering clause 9 of the office memorandum, which itself prescribes that failure to observe the procedure may result in the inquiry getting vitiated. It is thus apparent that the entire inquiry conducted against the petitioner is vitiated in the eyes of law.

¶59

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed . The order impugned dated 12.03.2025, a copy of which is annexure-1 to the petition, is set aside. However, considering the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, it is open for the respondents to hold an inquiry in accordance with law against the petitioner, keeping in view the office memorandum dated 16.07.2015 or any other provisions of the Rules, 1965, as applicable in the case of the petitioner. In case the respondents proceed with the inquiry, it would be held and concluded within a period of four months from the date of commencement of the said procedure. The said time period has been suggested by Sri S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate.

¶60

10. The consequential benefits as admissible to the petitioner on account of the order impugned being set aside would be subject to decision of the order which is to be passed by the respondents in case they proceed to hold an inquiry as directed above.

¶61

September 22, 2025 cks/-

¶62

(Abdul Moin,J.)

¶63

Digitally signed by :- CHANDRA KANT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Dr. Ravinder Singh Bedi v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli Thru. Its Executive Director and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Ravinder Singh Bedi v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli Thru. Its Executive Director and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sneh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Forest Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Mohan Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Lko. and 4 Others

Vinay Tripathi Vs Basic Shiksha Parishad Thru. Secy. Lko. and Another

Mirza Swalesh Baig and 21 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance U.P. Lko. and 7 Others

Pankaj Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Rubi Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and 4 Others