Dismissed

Avadhesh Kumar Singh v. India Oil Corporation Limited

Delhi HC2 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/11711/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing a writ petition challenging a penalty of reduction in grade for sexual harassment, the Court held that the petitioner waived appeal rights, the inquiry complied with natural justice, and the penalty was befitting the misconduct despite doubts about the initial complaint's authenticity.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and applicant are dismissed with no relief granted.

Avadhesh Kumar Singh Vs India Oil Corporation… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Order: January 02, 2018

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11711/2017 & C.M. 47505/2017

¶4

AVADHESH KUMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Satyapal Singh, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

INDIA OIL CORPORATION LIMITED ..... Respondent Through: Nemo.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

Vide impugned order of 6^th September, 2016, petitioner’s appeal against the penalty of “reduction to lower grade” i.e. from Grade-“D” to Grade-“C”, stands dismissed while noting that there was a doubt about authenticity of petitioner’s e-mail complaint of 21^st October, 2013, vide which he had made a complaint against the complainant of not following his oral instructions regarding doing the check of safety fittings on mounded bullets area.

¶9

The Inquiry Officer vide his Report of 31^st December, 2015 (Annexure P/14) has found petitioner guilty of indecent behavior towards the complainant and has held that charge of sexual harassment against petitioner stands proved. The Disciplinary Authority vide order of 16^th February, 2016 (Annexure P/16) has inflicted the penalty of reduction to a lower grade i.e. from Grade-“D” to Grade-“C” on account of petitioner’s aforesaid misconduct.

¶10

Page 1 of 3

¶11

W.P.(C) 11711/2017

¶12

The challenge to the penalty order and the appellate order by learned counsel for petitioner is on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was granted to petitioner to challenge the findings of the Inquiry Committee of 19^th September, 2014 (Annexure P/8) and without affording this opportunity to petitioner in terms of Section 18 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, petitioner was issued charge-sheet on 17^th November, 2014 (Annexure P/9) . According to petitioner’s counsel, the aforesaid infirmity vitiates the entire proceedings and so, it is submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶13

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders as well as the material on record, I find that petitioner had waived his right of appeal against Inquiry Officer’s Report of 19^th September, 2014 (Annexure P/8) and had participated in the regular inquiry after the charge-sheet (Annexure P/9) was served upon him. Such a view is being taken because petitioner’s counsel was unable to respond to the Court query about the Forum where the appeal under Section 18 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, was maintainable. In any case, I find that petitioner’s e-mail complaint of 21^st October, 2013 has not been duly proved on record. Otherwise also, a bare perusal of petitioner’s complaint of 21^st October, 2013 (Annexure P/1) reveals that the grievance of complainant was on account of not providing cab and security to her. Even if it is assumed for assumption sake that complainant was not doing the check of safety fittings on mounded bullets area, then in the usual official course of duty, petitioner ought to have given written instructions and not oral instructions. It is

¶14

Page 2 of 3

¶15

W.P.(C) 11711/2017

¶16

evident from the contents of the complaint of 9^th November, 2013 (Annexure P/2) of the complainant that her sexual harassment was not a solitary instance but was repeated again.

¶17

Without dwelling upon the merits of the case, I find that the inquiry against petitioner was not in violation of principles of natural justice nor any procedural safeguards have been violated. During the course of hearing, petitioner’s counsel has sought to urge that the Medical Expert’s Report regarding petitioner’s mental fitness was not supplied to him. Nothing turns on it for the reason that the Inquiry Officer had not relied upon the Medical Expert’s Report regarding petitioner’s mental condition and has taken note of the fact that even petitioner has not denied the instance of sexual harassment but had defended it by asserting that “galti se lag gya hoga” . In the facts and circumstances of this case, I find no infirmity in the impugned orders, as the penalty awarded to petitioner is befitting the misconduct committed by him.

¶18

In view of aforesaid, I find no palpable error in the impugned orders. This petition and application are accordingly dismissed.

¶19

SUNIL GAUR (JUDGE)

¶20

JANUARY 02, 2018 r

¶21

Page 3 of 3

¶22

W.P.(C) 11711/2017

Avadhesh Kumar Singh v. India Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avadhesh Kumar Singh v. India Oil Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gannon Dunkerley and Co. Ltd. Vs National Highways Authority of India through Officer in Charge and Its General Manager (T) Mr. K. v

Vijender Singh Vs Edmc and Anr.

Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

Prashant Pranav and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Subhash Chander Khatri & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ct/Gd Mahadev Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rohit Deshpande Vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Anr.

Hawa Valves a Company Registered and Incorporated & Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Chand Kaur Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Shivani Sharma & Anr. Vs Rajinder Singh & Ors. (United India Insrance Co. Ltd)

Shivani Sharma Vs Rajinder Singh & Ors. (M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd)

Himanshu Pande Vs Managing Committee of the Banyan Tree School & Ors.

Himani Malhotra Vs Indraprastha College for Women & Anr.

Rohit Deshpande Vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Anr.