# Union of India & Ors v. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 782
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-06
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 12422 of 2024
- **Bench:** Attau Rahman Masoodi, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-india-ors-v-central-administrative-tribunal-lko-anr-53094
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry -
Sexual Harassment - Conspiracy - CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 11(i), 29 - The
action (revisional power) could not have
been set aside merely for want of the
order having been passed by an authority
other than the President. Petitioners have
submitted that a bare perusal of the Rule 29
indicates that besides the President, the Head of
Department and the appellate authority are also
empowered to exercise the revisional power
under the Rule. In the present case, the fresh
action has been instituted by an order passed
by the appellate authority. (Para 12)

B. None of the allegations levelled in the
complaint
make out
a
case
"sexual
harassment" as defined in the guidelines
issued by the Government of India. (Para
18)

C. The complainant has already written to the
Additional Director, G.S.I. stating that the
dispute between her and the opposite party
no. 2 stands settled. In these circumstances,
before directing any action to be taken
against the opposite party no. 2, the
authorities
ought
to
have
satisfied
themselves whether any prima facie
case
of
commission
of
sexual
harassment by the opposite party no. 2
was made out. The authorities have not
recorded any satisfaction before instituting
proceeding afresh against the opposite party
no. 2. After examination of record, it can be
concluded that no case for instituting any
fresh proceeding on the allegation of sexual
harassment is made out against the opposite
party no. 2. (Para 19)

D.(i) The opposite party no. 2 has sent a
complaint dated 07.05.2023 to the Director
General, GSI against two officers, reproducing a
transcript of a conversation showing that they
had instigated the complainant to file a false
complaint against the opposite party no. 2 and
in response to this suggestion the complainant
had stated that the opposite party no. 2 had not
said anything to her. The opposite party no.
2 has requested the Director General to
take action against the aforesaid two
officers but it appears that no action has
been taken against those two officers.
(Para 20)
1 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. & Anr.
783
(ii) The Internal Complaints Committee had
found opposite party no. 2 as well as the
complainant guilty of aggravating their personal
issues to the extent that the whole office
suffered and the committee had recommended
appropriate action to be taken against both but
action has been taken against opposite party
no. 2 only and no action has been taken against
the complainant in spite of the recommendation
of the internal complainants committee. It prima
facie indicates that the authorities have
acted vindictively against the opposite
party no. 2 while shielding the other
erring persons. (Para 20)

In
these
circumstances,
no
fresh
proceedings can be drawn against the
opposite party no. 2 on the ground that he
has
committed
an
act
of
sexual
harassment against the complainant. (Para
21)

E. Jurisdiction - Although it is a general
principle of law that the validity of an
order is to be examined on the basis of the
reasons mentioned in the order. It is
equally well settled that even if an order
suffers from some illegality, the High
Court will not exercise its jurisdiction to
quash the same if it would result in
restoration of another illegality or if it
would propagate an injustice. The High
Court being a court record as mentioned in
Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has all
powers inherent in such a court so as to secure
the ends of justice. Interfering in the impugned
order passed by the tribunal for on the ground
that the reason assigned by the Tribunal for
setting aside the order is incorrect, would result
in initiation of fresh disciplinary proceedings
against the opposite party no. 2, which is not
warranted for the reasons mentioned in this
order and which would not be in the interest of
justice. (Para 22)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Present petition seeks quashing of the
judgm

## Text

782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stated by learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.4 that the respondents are
examining the records and an endeavour
would be made to take a final decision in the
matter pertaining to the same. The aforesaid
statement is recorded.

26. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
The
order
impugned
dated
16.05.2024, a copy of which is annexure 1 to
the petition, and the order dated 30.03.2024, a
copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, are
quashed. The respondents No.1 to 3 are
directed to pay the entire amount of gratuity due
to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks
from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order along with admissible interest.

27. The respondent No.4 shall also
take a final decision pertaining to the
payment of EDLI as due to the petitioner
within the aforesaid period of time.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 782
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ -A No. 12422 of 2024

Union of India & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ajit Kumar Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Praveen Kumar

A. Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry -
Sexual Harassment - Conspiracy - CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 11(i), 29 - The
action (revisional power) could not have
been set aside merely for want of the
order having been passed by an authority
other than the President. Petitioners have
submitted that a bare perusal of the Rule 29
indicates that besides the President, the Head of
Department and the appellate authority are also
empowered to exercise the revisional power
under the Rule. In the present case, the fresh
action has been instituted by an order passed
by the appellate authority. (Para 12)

B. None of the allegations levelled in the
complaint
make out
a
case
"sexual
harassment" as defined in the guidelines
issued by the Government of India. (Para
18)

C. The complainant has already written to the
Additional Director, G.S.I. stating that the
dispute between her and the opposite party
no. 2 stands settled. In these circumstances,
before directing any action to be taken
against the opposite party no. 2, the
authorities
ought
to
have
satisfied
themselves whether any prima facie
case
of
commission
of
sexual
harassment by the opposite party no. 2
was made out. The authorities have not
recorded any satisfaction before instituting
proceeding afresh against the opposite party
no. 2. After examination of record, it can be
concluded that no case for instituting any
fresh proceeding on the allegation of sexual
harassment is made out against the opposite
party no. 2. (Para 19)

D.(i) The opposite party no. 2 has sent a
complaint dated 07.05.2023 to the Director
General, GSI against two officers, reproducing a
transcript of a conversation showing that they
had instigated the complainant to file a false
complaint against the opposite party no. 2 and
in response to this suggestion the complainant
had stated that the opposite party no. 2 had not
said anything to her. The opposite party no.
2 has requested the Director General to
take action against the aforesaid two
officers but it appears that no action has
been taken against those two officers.
(Para 20)
1 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. & Anr.
783
(ii) The Internal Complaints Committee had
found opposite party no. 2 as well as the
complainant guilty of aggravating their personal
issues to the extent that the whole office
suffered and the committee had recommended
appropriate action to be taken against both but
action has been taken against opposite party
no. 2 only and no action has been taken against
the complainant in spite of the recommendation
of the internal complainants committee. It prima
facie indicates that the authorities have
acted vindictively against the opposite
party no. 2 while shielding the other
erring persons. (Para 20)

In
these
circumstances,
no
fresh
proceedings can be drawn against the
opposite party no. 2 on the ground that he
has
committed
an
act
of
sexual
harassment against the complainant. (Para
21)

E. Jurisdiction - Although it is a general
principle of law that the validity of an
order is to be examined on the basis of the
reasons mentioned in the order. It is
equally well settled that even if an order
suffers from some illegality, the High
Court will not exercise its jurisdiction to
quash the same if it would result in
restoration of another illegality or if it
would propagate an injustice. The High
Court being a court record as mentioned in
Article 215 of the Constitution of India, has all
powers inherent in such a court so as to secure
the ends of justice. Interfering in the impugned
order passed by the tribunal for on the ground
that the reason assigned by the Tribunal for
setting aside the order is incorrect, would result
in initiation of fresh disciplinary proceedings
against the opposite party no. 2, which is not
warranted for the reasons mentioned in this
order and which would not be in the interest of
justice. (Para 22)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Present petition seeks quashing of the
judgment and order dated 08.05.2024,
passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal,
Lucknow
Bench,
Lucknow
allowing
Original
Application
No.
332/00365 of 2023 filed by the opposite
party no. 2.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Attau Rahman
Masoodi J. & Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.)

1. Heard Sri Ajit Kumar Dwivedi, the
learned counsel for the petitioners-Union of
India and its Officers and Sri Praveen
Kumar the learned counsel for the opposite
parties.

2. By means of this writ petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioners have sought
quashing of the judgment and order dated
08.05.2024
passed
by
the
Central
Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow allowing Original Application
No. 332/00365 of 2023 filed by the
opposite party no. 2 - Akash Goyal.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case
are that while the opposite party no. 2 was
working as an Assistant in the office of the
Geological Survey of India, Western
Region, Jaipur, a lady co-worker filed a
complaint against him. The complaint was
referred to the Internal Complaints Committee,
which held a detailed enquiry and submitted a
report dated 21.11.2022. The Director (G) &
HOD and Disciplinary Authority, G.S.I.,
Western Region, Jaipur issued an Office
Memorandum dated 14.02.2023 stating that a
disciplinary action was proposed against the
opposite party no. 2 under Rule 16 of CCS
(CCA) Rules, 1965. The statement of the
imputation of misconduct was enclosed with
the memorandum and the opposite party no. 2
was given an opportunity to make a
representation against the proposal. The
statement of the imputations of misconduct
levelled the following two charges :-

ARTICLE-1
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
That the said Sh Akash
Goyal,
Assistant,
Geological
Survey of India, Western Region,
Jaipur has breached the modesty of
a woman in work place, as reported
by the lady official in her written
complaint on dated 23rd May 2027,
during the proceedings of Internal
Complaints Committee Meeting it
is observed that the right to life
with dignity and her right to
secrecy of the complainant was
breached by sharing her very
personal data like whats app chat
content and pregnancy report with
others without her consent affecting
the modesty of a woman by Sh.
Akash Goyal, Assistant, GSI, WR,
Jaipur.
Therefore, Sh Akash Goyal,
Assistant, Geological Surety of
India, Western
Region,
Jaipur
indulged
himself
in
gross
misconduct, dereliction of duty in a
manner
unbecoming
of
a
Government
Servant
in
contravention of Rule 3(1)(ii) &
(iii) and 3-C(1) of CCS(Conduct)
Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE-II
That the said Sh Akash
Goyal,
Assistant,
Geological
Survey of India, Western Region,
Jaipur during the proceedings of
Internal
Complaints
Committee
Meeting it is also observed that the
natter was initiated from personal
Issue and aggravated so much that
the whole office suffered.
Therefore, Sh Akash Goyal,
Assistant, Geological Survey of
India, Western Region, Jaipur has
failed to maintain devotion to duty
and
acted
in
a
manner
of
unbecoming
of
Government
Servant in contravention of Rule
3(1) (ii) & (iii) of CCS(Conduct)
Rule, 1964.

4. The opposite party no. 2
submitted his representation against the
aforesaid memorandum on 15.02.2023 inter
alia
stating
that
the
matter
under
consideration was personal in nature and it
did not concern the office, as was clearly
intimated to the office vide letter dated
01.04.2022 jointly signed by the opposite
party no. 2 and the complainant. A copy of
the letter dated 01.04.2022 jointly written
by the opposite party no. 2 and the
complainant was annexed with the reply.
The opposite party no. 2 further stated in
his reply that the allegations do not make
out a case of sexual harassment. It was also
stated in the reply that the opposite party
no.
2
had
already
submitted
a
comprehensive
representation
dated
20.12.2022 stating that the complainant had
exaggerated the matter and concocted the
story to defame the opposite party no. 2 but
the matter was resolved subsequently.

5. The opposite party no. 2 stated
that his performance of duties was evident
from the letters of appreciation issued on
15.06.2022 and 20.09.2022, copies whereof
were enclosed with the reply. The opposite
party no. 2 had been transferred from
Jaipur to Lucknow and the complainant had
been transferred from Jaipur to New Delhi.
In these circumstances, no further action
was warranted in the matter.

6. After taking into consideration
the entire material, the Director(G) & HOD
and Disciplinary Authority passed an order
dated 28.02.2023 imposing a punishment of
censure entry against the opposite party no.
2 in terms of the Sub-rule (i) of Rule 11 of
CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965.
1 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. & Anr.
785
7. On 12.05.2023 the opposite
party no. 2 lodged a First Information
Report No. 0326 under Sections 384, 211,
120B I.P.C. in Police Station Jawahar
Circle, District Jaipur City (East) against (i)
Raj Kumar Chauhan, Deputy Director
(Personal & Administration) GSI, Director
General Camp Office, New Delhi and (ii)
Ashok Kumar Singh, Assistant Director
(Personal and Administration) GSI, New
Delhi stating that the opposite party no. 2
had developed friendly relations with the
complainant who was working as a Junior
Clerk in the office. Their marriage got
settled and Roka ceremony was performed
on 25.10.2021. However, their marriage
could not be solemnized but still, the
opposite party no. 2 and the complainant
continued
to
be
good
friends.
The
complainant
wanted
to
get
herself
transferred to New Delhi and she had
talked to the aforesaid two accused officers
in this regard. They misled the complainant
and persuaded her to file a false complaint
against opposite party no. 2.

8. The opposite party no. 2 had
submitted some conversations between the
complainant and the accused officers
recorded in a Pen-drive as the evidence in
support of the allegations. A transcript of the
conversations is a part of a complaint dated
07.05.2023 sent by opposite party no. 2 to the
Director General, GSI, showing that Sri. Raj
Kumar Chauhan, Deputy Director (Personal
& Administration) GSI had instigated the
complainant to file a false complaint against
the opposite party no. 2 alleging that he was
harassing and blackmailing her and in
response to this suggestion the complainant
had stated that the opposite party no. 2 had
not said anything to her.

9. On 07.07.2023, the opposite
party no. 2 submitted a representation to
the Director General, GSI praying for
cancellation of the punishment order dated
28.02.2023. However, the record reveals
that the Additional Director General &
HOD and the appellate authority had
already issued a direction on 20.06.2023
stating that the penalty of censure was
imposed on the opposite party no. 2
without following due procedures as laid
down vide DOPT O.M. dated 16.07.2015
and, therefore, the order dated 28.02.2023
was withdrawn so that further action can be
initiated against the opposite party no. 2 in
accordance
with
the
O.M.
dated
16.07.2015. A fresh charge-sheet dated
29.08.2023 containing the same two
charges that had been levelled earlier, was
issued to the opposite party no. 2 and the
memorandum stated that an inquiry would
be held under Rule 14 CCS(CCA) Rules,
1965. The opposite party no. 2 challenged
the aforesaid orders before the Central
Administrative Tribunal by filing Original
Application No. 332/00365 of 2023, which
has been allowed by the impugned order.

10. The Central Administrative
Tribunal
referred
to
the
provisions
contained in Rule 29 of the CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965, which provides as follows: -

"PART VIII-REVISION
AND REVIEW
29. Revision
(1)
Notwithstanding
anything contained in these rules-
(i) the President; or
(ii) the Comptroller and
Auditor-General, in the case of a
Government servant serving in the
Indian
Audit
and
Accounts
Department; or
(iii)
the
Member
(Personnel) Postal Services Board
in the case of a Government
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
servant serving in or under the
Postal Services Board and Adviser
(Human Resources Development),
Department of Telecommunications
in the case of a Government
servant serving in or under the
Telecommunications Board; or
(iv)
the
Head
of
a
Department directly under the
Central Government, in the case of
a Government servant serving in a
department or office (not being the
Secretariat
or
the
Posts
and
Telegraphs
Board),
under
the
control
of
such
Head
of
a
Department; or
(v) the appellate authority,
within six months of the date of the
order proposed to be revised or
(vi) any other authority
specified in this behalf by the
President by a general or special
order, and within such time as may
be prescribed in such general or
special order;
may at any time, either on
his or its own motion or otherwise
call for the records of any inquiry
and revise any order made under
these rules or under the rules
repealed by rule 34 from which an
appeal is allowed, but from which
no appeal has been preferred or
from which no appeal is allowed,
after
consultation
with
the
Commission
where
such
consultation is necessary, and may-
(a) confirm, modify or set
aside the order; or
(b)
confirm,
reduce,
enhance or set aside the penalty
imposed by the order, or impose
any penalty where no penalty has
been imposed; or
(c) remit the case to the
authority which made the order to
or any other authority directing
such authority to make such further
enquiry as it may consider proper
in the circumstances of the case; or
(d) pass such other orders
as it may deem fit:
Provided that no order
imposing or enhancing any penalty
shall be made by any revising
authority unless the Government
servant concerned has been given a
reasonable opportunity of making a
representation against the penalty
proposed and where it is proposed
to impose any of the penalties
specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of
rule 11 or to enhance the penalty
imposed by the order sought to be
revised to any of the penalties
specified in those clauses, and if an
inquiry under rule 14 has not
already been held in the case no
such penalty shall be imposed
except after an inquiry in the
manner laid down in rule 14
subject to the provisions of rule 19,
and except after consultation with
the
Commission
where
such
consultation
is
necessary
and
Government Servant has been
given
an
opportunity
of
representing against the advice of
the Commission within the time
limit specified in clause (b) of subrule (3) of rule 15,
Provided further that no
power of revision shall be exercised
by the Comptroller and AuditorGeneral,
Member
(Personnel),
Postal Services Board, Adviser
(Human Resources Department),
Department of Telecommunications
1 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. & Anr.
787
or the Head of Department, as the
case may be, unless-
(i) the authority which
made the order in appeal, or
 (ii) the authority to which
an appeal would lie, where no
appeal has been preferred, is
subordinate to him.
(2)
No
proceeding
for
revision shall be commenced until
after-
(i) the expiry of the period
of limitation for an appeal, or
(ii) the disposal of the
appeal, where any such appeal has
been preferred.
(3
An
application
for
revision shall be dealt with in the
same manner as if it were an
appeal under these rules. "

11. The Central Administrative
Tribunal held that no order of the President
had been produced by the authorities and in
absence of the President's order, action of
the
revising
authority,
the
appellate
authority and the disciplinary authority
based on observations of Ministry of Mines
in withdrawing the penalty imposed and
issuing a fresh memorandum of charges,
are non-est.

12. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has submitted that a bare perusal
of the Rule 29 quoted above indicates that
besides
the
President,
the
Head
of
Department and the appellate authority are
also empowered to exercise the revisional
power under the Rule. In the present case,
the fresh action has been instituted by an
order passed by the appellate authority and,
therefore, the action could not have been
set aside merely for want of the order
having been passed by an authority other
than the President. We agree with this
submission and the sole reason assigned by
the Central Administrative Tribunal for
passing
the
impugned
order
is
not
sustainable in the eyes of law.

13. However, we have gone
through the documents brought on record
with the Writ Petition, including the
complaint made against opposite party no.
2 and the report submitted by the Internal
Complaints Committee. The complainant is
being reproduced below: -

"Geological
Surrey
of
India
WR, Jaipur
Kind attention I HoD WR,
Jaipur
Subject
:-
Complaint
against a person
Respected Sir,
I am writing this letter to
inform you about the inappropriate
behavior of a person in Geological
Survey of India, WR, Jaipur. As the
number from which I am facing
harassment and defamation is
9468623803 which is from truecaller coming the name of Kushal
Singh Hada (assistant APAR CELL)
in the Geological Survey of India,
WR, Jaipur.
I
have
attached
some
screenshots of the above contained
and I sincerely hope that you will
take the necessary action for his
immediate cause and also I am
looking forwarded to a positive
response from your side as easily
as possible.
Thanking you
Copy for information to
Internal
Complaint
Committee Chairperson GSI, WR,
Jaipur
788 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Yours Sincerely
* * *
LDC"

14. The observations of the
committee
include
the
following
observations;-

iii Both of them have the
habit of recording the phone calls
as well as one to one conversation
which were later on submitted to
the committee.

vii The complainant Ms * *
* had also misled the committee
regarding the nature of relationship
she was having with Shri Akash
Goyal, on first occasion she denied,
later on admitted that they were
staying together. She also misled
the committee regarding her place
of
stay
while
availing
leave
recommended by the IC. Moreover
while checking the entry register at
the gate of the GSI Colony to verify
the entry of Akash Goyal, IC found
that the copy received from the incharge of the GSI Colony is very
different from the copy submitted to
the Office by Ms * * *. She also
lied before the committee regarding
her relationship with Ms. * * *, her
room partner.
viii She exaggerated many
things related to the threatening
and her safety and security as for
example she got some anonymous
phone calls for which she blamed
the respondents without any proof.
The committee made an effort to
verify by calling those numbers, but
got no response. The IC asked both
of them on many occasions about
the last interaction they had with
each other, to which Akash Goyal
informed the IC that the telephonic
conversation with a conference call
with
her
brother-in-law
on
16.04.2022
was
the
last
conversation he had with * * *,
after which he had not interacted
with her in the presence of * * *.
Hence it seems that the allegations
by Ms. * * * vide letter dated
23.05.2022 against Shri Akash
Goyal that he called her and
stalked her is false.
xii
She
has
put
her
signature on some of the statements
and denied to sign the others. The
committee allowed her to go
through the statements repeatedly
and counselled her, but she was not
satisfied and refused to sign citing
the reason that the statements
should be in more detail as it would
go to the court. She also told the
committee to elaborate more on
some incidences.
xiii Ms. * * * has maligned
the image of the Office by bringing
the
police
to
the
Office
in
connection with the theft of her
mobile
phone
without
prior
permission of the Office. Due to
police complaints, most of the
witnesses were scared, did not want
to share any information.
xiv
All
the
colleagues
called
to
the
proceedings
as
witnesses told that both * * * and
Akash used to meet with each other
in their respective Sections during
the Lunch hours and used to have
normal discussions and they have
not noticed them quarreling or
talking rudely. Shri Arun Yadav,
LDC, Party bill Section informed
the IC that * * * was very disturbed
1 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. & Anr.
789
and stressed during the month of
March, 2022 as noticed from the
facial expression while talking over
phone.
xv It seems that the matter
was also aggravated due to some
lapses in administrative actions.
Had the Office administration
acted upon the initial complaints
based on the CCS Conduct Rules,
the matter could have been sorted
out early. After so many complaints
sitting arrangement of both the
complainant and the respondent
could have been done in separate
buildings or wings.
xvii Action should have
been tken against Ms. * * * under
CCS Conduct rules for bringing
Police
to
the
Office,
thereby
Maligning the image of the.(Sic.)
Despite the written complaint by
the Security Officer regarding this,
no action has been taken except the
verbal warning.
xviii
The
committee
everything (Sic.) that everything
started from their personal issue. In
due
course
of
time
their
relationship worsened to such an
extent that, the matter led to
involve the Office and thereby
wasting the valuable time of the
Office and affecting the work hour
productivity. Post termination of
Roka and the relationship between
Ms * * *, LDC and Shri Akash
Goyal, Assistant it seems that there
was blame game, allegations and
counter allegation with maligned
intention to take revenge on one
another and defame the other. They
also involved the Office in this
matter unnecessarily, despite a
letter submitted to the Office by
both of them dated 1st April, 2022
admitting that it was their personal
matter and will not involve the
office further. The act of Shri Akash
Gyal, Assistant with a malign
intention to defame Ms. * * * LDC
by sharing her personal content
and sensitive pregnancy report with
others is an attempt to breach the
modest of a woman.

15. The Internal Complaints
Committee
had
made
the
following
recommendations :-

i The matter was initiated
from
personal
issue
and
aggravated so much that the whole
office
suffered
for
which
appropriate action may be taken on
both
the
respondent
and
complainant as per the CCS,
conduct rules.
ii The right to life with
dignity and her right to secrecy of
the complainant was breached by
the respondent by sharing her very
personal data like whats app chat
content, pregnancy report with
others without her consent affecting
the modesty of a woman. Hence
appropriate action as per CCS,
conduct rules may be initiated
against the respondent Shri Akash
Goyal, for his act of harassing a
woman and unbecoming of a
government Servant.
iii.
Even
though
the
complaint, Ms. * * * has been
transferred out of GSI, Jaipur to
DGCO, New Delhi, the committee
also recommends the transfer out of
Shri Akash Goyal, as he disturbed
the Office environment through
sharing information of a woman
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
using the phone of other colleague
without their consent and also tried
to influence the committee through
higher
officials
and
leaked
confidential content of proceedings
to other Officials.
iv. Ms. * * * has signed
some of the statements and refused
to sign the other despite all
attempts made by the committee to
attend her concerns, for which she
needs to be counselled.

16. The complainant had submitted
an application dated 01.04.2022 jointly
with the opposite party no. 2, to the
Director (G) & Head of Office GSI,
Western Region, Jaipur stating that the
matter between them had been sorted out.

17. The record further reveals that
the complainant was transferred to New
Delhi as per her own wish and no action
was taken against her in spite of the
recommendations
of
the
Internal
Complaints Committee.

18. The Government of India has
issued guidelines for dealing with the
complaints of sexual harassment. The
relevant passage from the guideline which
deals "sexual harassment" provides as
follows :-

What
is
Sexual
Harassment?
2."sexual
harassment"
includes any one or more of the
following acts or behavior (whether
directly
or
by
implication),
namely:-
(i) physical contact and
advances; or
(ii) demand or request for
sexual favours; or
(iii)sexually
coloured
remarks; or
(iv)showing
any
pornography; or
(v) any other unwelcome
physical,
verbal,
non-verbal
conduct of a sexual nature.
3.
The
following
circumstances,
among
other
circumstances, in relation to or
connected
with
any
act
or
behaviour of sexual harassment
may amount to sexual harassment:
-
• (i) implied or explicit
promise of preferential treatment in
employment; or
• (ii) implied or explicit
threat of detrimental treatment in
employment ; or
• (iii) implied or explicit
threat about her present or future
employment status; or
• (iv) interference with her
work or creating an intimidating or
offensive
or
hostile
work
environment for her; or
• (v) humiliating treatment
likely to affect her health or safety.
A bare perusal of the
complaint indicates that none of the
allegations
levelled
in
the
complaint make out a case "sexual
harassment" as defined in the
guidelines
issued
by
the
Government of India.

19. The complainant has already
written to the Additional Director, G.S.I.
stating that the dispute between her and the
opposite party no. 2 stands settled. In these
circumstances, before directing any action
to be taken against the opposite party no. 2,
the authories ought to have satisfied
themselves whether any prima facie case of
1 All. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal Lko. & Anr.
791
commission of sexual harassment by the
opposite party no. 2 was made out. The
authorities
have
not
recorded
any
satisfaction before instituting proceeding
afresh against the opposite party no. 2.
Upon examining the record, we have come
to a conclusion that no case for instituting
any fresh proceeding on the allegation of
sexual harassment is made out against the
opposite party no. 2.

20. The opposite party no. 2 has
filed F.I.R. No. 0326 under Sections 384,
211, 120B I.P.C., Police Station Jawahar
Circle, District Jaipur City (East) against
two higher officers of the department
alleging that they had conspired and
instigated the complaint to file a false
complaint and he has submitted evidence in
support of the allegation in the form of
conversations recorded in a pen-drive. The
opposite party no. 2 has sent a complaint
dated 07.05.2023 to the Director General,
GSI against (i) Raj Kumar Chauhan,
Deputy
Director
(Personal
&
Administration) GSI, Director General
Camp Office, New Delhi and (ii) Ashok
Kumar Singh, Assistant Director (Personal
and Administration) GSI, New Delhi
reproducing a transcript of the aforesaid
conversation
showing
that
they
had
instigated the complainant to file a false
complaint against the opposite party no. 2
and in response to this suggestion the
complainant had stated that the opposite
party no. 2 had not said anything to her.
The opposite party no. 2 has requested the
Director General to take action against the
aforesaid two officers but it appears that no
action has been taken against those two
officers.
The
Internal
Complaints
Committee had found opposite party no. 2
as well as the complainant guilty of
aggravating their personal issues to the
extent that the whole office suffered and the
committee had recommended appropriate
action to be taken against both the opposite
party no. 2 and the complainant but action
has been taken against opposite party no. 2
only and no action has been taken against
the
complainant
in
spite
of
the
recommendation
of
the
internal
complainants committee. It prima facie
indicates that the authorities have acted
vindictively against the opposite party no. 2
while shielding the other erring persons.

21. In these circumstances, no
fresh proceedings can be drawn against the
opposite party no. 2 on the ground that he
has committed an act of sexual harassment
against the complainant.

22. Although it is a general
principle of law that the validity of an order
is to be examined on the basis of the
reasons mentioned in the order. It is equally
well settled that even if an order suffers
from some illegality, the High Court will
not exercise its jurisdiction to quash the
same if it would result in restoration of
another illegality or if it would propagate
an injustice. The High Court being a court
record as mentioned in Article 215 of the
Constitution of India, has all powers
inherent in such a court so as to secure the
ends of justice. Interfering in the impugned
order passed by the tribunal for on the
ground that the reason assigned by the
Tribunal for setting aside the order is
incorrect, would result in initiation of fresh
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
opposite party no. 2, which is not warranted
for the reasons mentioned in this order and
which would not be in the interest of
justice.

23. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we do not find any good ground
to interfere with the judgment and order
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated 08.05.2024 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench,
Lucknow in Original Application No.
332/00365 of 2023 and to permit fresh
disciplinary
proceedings
against
the
opposite party no. 2, although for reasons
different from the reason mentioned by the
tribunal in the impugned order.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition
is dismissed. Costs made easy.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 792
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ -A No. 12938 of 2024

Smt. Pin Maya Kumal ...Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashok Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

A. Service Law - Pension - Defence
Service Regulation: Regulation 333; Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 - Second marriage can
be
contracted
only
in
certain
circumstances and that too after obtaining
sanction from the competent authority
and any violation of this provision may
attract
termination
of
service
of
concerned employee. (Para 16)

In the present case, Late Tek Bahadur Thapa
was a Nepalese Gorkha and as per Regulation
333 quoted above, he could have remarried in
the following circumstances: -
(i) When the wife suffers from incurable insanity
(madness),
(ii) When there is no birth till ten years of
marriage,
(iii) When the wife is paralysed and cannot
move,
(iv) When the wife becomes blind of both the
eyes.
(v) When the wife is suffering from an infectious
incurable sexually transmitted disease. (Para 7)

Late
Tek
Bahadur
Thapa
had
four
daughters and a son from his first
marriage and it is nobody's case that his
first wife Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal suffered
from any disease/infirmity mentioned in
Regulation
333(B)(a)
of
Army
Regulations. Sri Tek Bahadur Thapa did not
apply for sanction to contract plural marriages
on any of the grounds mentioned in Regulation
333(B)(b). Service of the person who has
contracted
plural
marriages
without
obtaining sanction from the competent
authority can be terminated under the
provisions
contained
in
Regulation
333(B)(g) of Army Regulations, but the fact
of Late Tek Bahadur Thapa having entered into
plural marriages was not brought to the notice
of the authorities during his service period or
even thereafter during his life time. Therefore,
no administrative action for termination of his
service was taken. (Para 6, 8)

B. The petitioner could not point out any
provision
of
law
under
which
this
marriage
(1st
marriage)
was
void.
Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the
marriage of late Tek Bahadur Thapa with
Smt. Dalli Maya Kumal was void. (Para 14)

C. The submission that the petitioner is an
illiterate
person
and
she
was
not
responsible for proper upkeep of the
service records of her deceased husband
and it was for the authorities to correctly
maintain the service records of late Tek
Bahadur Thapa and record the name of
the petitioner therein as wife, does not
hold any force as information about family
members/dependents is given to the
authorities
by
the
concerned
employee/officer himself. (Para 15)

The Armed Forces Tribunal dismissed the
original application filed by the petitioner on the