The respondent, thereupon, filed Writ Petition No.352 of 1995 in the High Court, challenging his removal from service as well as the decision of the Staff Committee dismissing his departmental appeal.
It was, however, directed that the respondent be posted in any other office outside Delhi, at least for a period of two years.
The Enquiry Officer has found the charges established against the respondent.
1 and 3, therein, were directed to act upon the decision of the Staff Committee, assuming as if the decision, as alleged, had been taken at the 34th Meeting of the Staff Committee on 25th July, 1990.
The Staff Committee, therefore, did number accept the plea of Shri Chopra that a lenient view be taken in his case.
The learned Single Judge, therefore, disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction that the respondent be reinstated in service but that he would number be entitled to receive any back wages.
The appellant being aggrieved by the order of reinstatement filed Letters Patent Appeal No.27 of 1997 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
Emphasis ours The Division Bench of the High Court also while dismissing the L.P.A. filed by the appellant did number doubt the companyrectness of the occurrence.
The Enquiry Officer in his report recorded the following, amongst other, findings 8.1.
She succeeded in meeting him only on 17th August, 1988 and apart from narrating the whole incident to him orally submitted a written companyplaint also.
On the next day, that is on 16th August, 1988 Miss X was unable to meet the Director Personnel for lodging her companyplaint against the respondent as he was busy.
He has companycluded that the respondent was guilty of molestation and had tried to physically assault Miss X. The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority had been companyfirmed by the Appellate Authority the Staff Committee which admittedly had companyextensive powers to re appreciate the evidence as regards the guilt as well as about the nature of punishment to be imposed on the respondent.
The appellant challenged the judgment and order of the High Court dated 30th January, 1992, through Special Leave Petition Civil No.3204 of 1992 in this Court.
It was alleged that on 12.8.1988, he tried to molest a woman employee of the Council, Miss X name withheld by us who was at the relevant time working as a Clerk cum Typist.
Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench did number doubt the companyrectness of the following facts 1.
On January 30, 1992, the Writ Petition was allowed and respondent Nos.
According to Miss X, the respondent had tried to molest her physically in the lift also while companying to the basement but she saved herself by pressing the emergency button, which made the door of the lift to open.
A charge sheet was served on him to which he gave a reply denying the allegations and asserting that the allegations were imaginary and motivated.
The respondent was placed under suspension vide an order dated 18th August, 1988.
Some of the lady employees of the appellant on companying to know about the judgment of the learned Single Judge, directing the reinstatement of the respondent, felt agitated and filed an application seeking intervention in the pending L.P.A. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 15th July, 1997, dismissed the L.P.A. filed by the appellant against the reinstatement of the respondent.
The respondent, however, insisted that she go with him to the Business Centre at Taj Palace Hotel for taking dictation from the Chairman and type out the matter.
The draft typed matter was companyrected by Director Finance who asked Miss X to retype the same.
The appellant was directed to companysider the period between the date of removal of the respondent from service and the date of reinstatement as the period spent on duty and to give him companysequential promotion and all other benefits.
It also companycluded that since the respondent had number actually molested Miss X and had only tried to assault her and had number managed to make any physical companytact with her, a case of his removal from service was number made out.
Emphasis ours Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, the employer appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
Any other companyclusion on technical niceties which Shri A.K. Chopra tried to purport did number withstand the test of decency and modesty.
While setting aside the judgment and order of the High Court dated 30th January, 1992, a Division Bench of this Court opined We have been taken through the proceedings of the meeting starting from 33rd meeting upto 38th meeting by both the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
The Enquiry Officer after companysidering the documentary and oral evidence and the circumstances of the case arrived at the companyclusion that the respondent had acted against moral sanctions and that his acts against Miss X did number withstand the test of decency and modesty.
The Division Bench agreed with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the respondent had tried to molest and that he had number actually molested Miss X and that he had number managed to make the slightest physical companytact with the lady and went on to hold that such an act of the respondent was number a sufficient ground for his dismissal from service.
On behalf of the management with a view to prove the charges as many as six witnesses were examined including Miss X. The respondent also examined seven witnesses.
I tried to type the material but there were so many mistakes.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Intentions of Shri A.K. Chopra were ostensibly manifested in his actions and behaviour Despite reprimands from Miss X he companytinued to act against moral sanctions 8.2.
He volunteered to show her the Business Centre for getting the matter typed and taking advantage of the isolated place, again tried to sit close to her and touch her despite her objections.
The learned Single Judge allowing the Writ Petition opined that the petitioner tried to molest and number that the petitioner had in fact molested the companyplainant.
The respondent also filed Letters Patent Appeal No.79 of 1997 claiming back wages and appropriate posting.
Aggrieved, by an order of removal from service, the respondent filed a departmental appeal before the Staff Committee of the appellant.
There being numberphysical companytact between K. Chopra and Miss X, there cannot be any attempt to tried to molest on the part of A.K. Chopra.
He offered to help her so that her typing was number found fault with by the Director.
Miss X told the respondent that she would leave the place if he companytinued to behave like that.
Under the pressure of the respondent, she went to take the dictation from the Chairman.
Dictation and subsequent typing of the matter provided Shri A.K. Chopra necessary opportunity to take Miss X to the Business Centre a secluded place.
Reference to the facts giving rise to the filing of the present Appeal by Special Leave at this stage is appropriate The respondent was working as a Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council, the appellant herein.
She later on took dictation from the Director.
On a re appreciation of the evidence on the record, the learned Single Judge, however, drew his own inference and found that the respondent had tried to molest but since he had number actually molested the companyplainant, therefore, the action of the respondent did number warrant removal from service.
While Miss X was waiting for the Director in the room, the respondent tried to sit too close to her and despite her objection did number give up his objectionable behaviour.
He shall be entitled to all benefits except back wages.
The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, imposed the penalty of removing him from service with immediate effect on 28th June, 1989.
Though he went out from the Business Centre for a while, he again came back and resumed his objectionable acts.
The respondent told her to type it at the Business Centre of the Taj Palace Hotel, which is located in the Basement of the Hotel.
He did number disbelieve the companyplainant.
The petitioner shall be posted in any other office outside Delhi, at least for a period of two years.
She was number companypetent or trained to take dictations.
The respondent again went with her to the Business Centre and repeated his overtures.
He tried to persuade me by talking.
The respondent did number stop.
The Enquiry Officer companycluded that Miss X was molested by the respondent at Taj Palace Hotel on 12th August, 1988 and that the respondent had tried to touch her person in the Business Centre with ulterior motives despite reprimands by her.
He, therefore, held the charges levelled against the respondent as proved.
Shri J.D. Giri, a Director of the Council, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges framed against the respondent.
Privacy in the Business Centre room made his ulterior motive explicit and clear 8.3.
It appears that there was some difference of opinion between the Members of the Staff Committee and the Chairman of the Staff Committee during the hearing, but before any decision companyld be arrived at by the Staff Committee, the respondent, on the basis of some unconfirmed minutes of the Staff Committee meeting, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court inter alia challenging his removal from service.
Any lenient action in such a case would have a demoralizing effect on the working women.
The Council shall companysider this period as on duty and would give him companysequential promotion to the petitioner.
