1. Chhattar Pal, who was at the relevant time holding the post of Foreman Instructor and has since superannuated, has filed present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 questioning the order passed by disciplinary authority dated 27.0 7.2004 removing him from service as also appellate order dated 05.11.2004 vide which, even though findings of disciplinary authority with regard to the charge against him have been confirmed, the punishment has been reduced from removal to reduction by five stages in the time scale of pay till date of his retirement.
2. The case as set up by the applicant in his Application is that he was serving as Foreman Instructor in 1998 at ITI Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. On 27.09.1998 a news item was published in a weekly newspaper 'Singhal Sandesh with the headline 'SABZIMANDI PRSHIKSHAN KENDR MAIN SHIKSHA KE NAAM PAR LOOT'. In the said news, it was alleged that two persons namely, S.S. Gaba, S.I. and Prahlad Singh, C.I. of IIT Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, who were in-charge of admission, had given admission to candidates who were not eligible due to less marks, as required for admission, after taking Rs. 10,000/- from each candidate. The applicant being next to the Principal of ITI, along with one J.S. Kapoor, C.I., were entrusted with the task of investigation to find out truth by the Principal of ITI, Sabzi Mani, New Delhi. On verification from different schools in respect of the candidates, who were admitted in different courses of ITI, Sabzi Mandi, New Delhi, about 50 candidates were found ineligible. After submission of report by the applicant and other committee members, namely, J.S. Kapoor, C.I. and Jeewan Dass, W/S/A, all the candidates so admitted were dismissed from the roll of ITI. Out of those 50 candidates, 27 were discharged because they did not attend the ITI after investigation was conducted. To save the face of the Institute and its Instructors, who were involved in the scam, no action was taken against the defaulters, but this made the applicant enemy of those two persons who were in outlook to fix him in some way or the other. It is the case of the applicant that for about 40 years, he had blot free and good records throughout. There is no complaint of any kind against him. Every Institution, where the applicant had served, had lady instructors, senior and junior to him, but through out his career there was no complaint of any kind. On 04.02.1999, as per office order, the applicant was appointed as Chairman for Boys and Shri J.R.Bhalla was appointed as Chairman for Girls of Annual Sports Committee.
Under both the Chairmen, 8 persons were also appointed in these committees. Two ladies, namely, Smt. Kamini and Smt. Nirmal Goswami were appointed as members under the Chairman for Girls Wing to look after girls' sports events and remaining Instructors namely S/Shri Naman Bhatia, Prahalad Singh and S.K. Sikri were appointed as members in the Committee for Boys. Two persons, namely, Narender Kumar and Harlmeet Singh were appointed as coordinators and Sh. Satveer Singh as Secretary. The applicant being Chairman of Sports Committee for Boys, three members were under him and two lady members, who were members of Girls' Committee, were under Sh. J.R.Bhatia, Chairman for Girls for all purposes. It is the case of the applicant that Prahlad Singh, one of the members of the Committee, was the same person, as indicated in the newspaper, who along with Sh. S.S. Gaba admitted 50 ineligible candidates. The applicant being Foreman Instructor was instrumental in getting them discharged from the Institute. Smt. Sushila Sharma and Shri Hari Kishan, C.I. were neither members of any of the Sports Committees nor they were connected with any sports and, as such, there was no chance of their presence at Roshanara Bagh Sports Ground where the applicant was conducting the practice and selection of boys for sports on 10.02.1999 and the events for the girls were also being conducted on the same day at ITI Campus where complainant Smt. Kamini was deployed under the Chairmanship of Sh. J.R. Bhalla. Smt. Kamini C.I., Smt. Sushila Sharma, Shri Hari Kishan and Sh. Prahlad Singh were in one group being from the same department i.e. Tailoring and Embroidery, and they used to contrive to have revenge from the applicant. On 12.02.1999, Smt. Kamini C.I. made false complaint against the applicant which was addressed to the Director, TTE as also on 15.02.1999 to the enquiry officer alleging that the applicant in her absence and in the presence of Sh. Hari Kishan and Prahlad Singh, C.I., uttered filthy abuses. A departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant and based on hear say evidence he was held guilty by enquiry officer and was punished with removal from service by disciplinary authority. On appeal, the appellate authority reduced the punishment to reduction by five stages in the time scale of pay till his date of retirement.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply, contested the cause of the applicant. In the counter reply filed on their behalf, it has, inter alia, been pleaded that the applicant was chargesheeted in connection with sexual harassment of female colleague vide memorandum dated 18.03.1999 and he is trying to divert the attention of this Tribunal by quoting instances which are not connected with his misconduct of sexual harassment. Inasmuch as the averment made by the applicant with regard to wrongful admission and conducting enquiry along with other colleagues is concerned, it has been mentioned that it is a matter of record.
4. The various pleas as have been taken by the applicant in support of the relief prayed for, mention whereof would be made in the following paragraphs of this judgment, have been refuted. The applicant has also filed rejoinder, by and large reiterating the averments made by him in the Original Application and controverting the stand taken by the respondents in their counter reply.
5. Before we may proceed any further in the matter, we may mention that arguments in this case were heard on 28.3.2008 when judgment was reserved. On 21.4.2008, we ordered the matter to be listed for re-hearing for clarification/arguments on the points referred to in the said order. The matter was indeed listed for re-hearing and arguments of Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel representing the respondents, on the points referred to in the said order have been heard. Counsel for the applicant, however, did not choose to appear despite the fact that the matter was adjourned on a couple of occasions to secure his presence.
6. Learned Counsel representing the parties, as mentioned in the order dated 21.4.2008, were at pains to address arguments with regard to authenticity or credibility of the evidence led by the department on the charge framed against the applicant. On that count, we, however, find no merit in the argument. Courts and Tribunals, as per established law, would not re-appraise the evidence. That apart, statement of principal witness Ms. Kamini examined in the departmental enquiry has been corroborated by oral and documentary evidence to support the case set up by the department. Nothing at all was urged during the course of arguments with regard to witnesses supporting Ms. Kamini being inimical to the applicant for the report submitted by him and others culminating into cancellation of admissions of some candidates. While, however, dealing with the matter, vide orders dated 21.4.2008, we noted that perusal of statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in support of articles of charge would clearly manifest that the applicant was charged for using abusive and unparliamentary language with sexually coloured remarks against his junior colleague Ms. Kamini, and it is this conduct alone, it was stated, which is bound to have a demoralizing effect on working women in general and Ms. Kamini in particular, and further that the said conduct amounts to sexual harassment of a woman at workplace and is an act unbecoming of a government servant. We also noted that in the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, reference is once again to one event dated 11.2.1999, and that use of foul, abusive or unparliamentary language with sexually coloured remarks is attributed to the applicant in absence of the complainant. She was only told about the same by her colleagues. It is in wake of circumstances mentioned above that we noted that a pertinent question that would arise would be as to whether one single incident of using foul, abusive, unparliamentary language with sexually coloured remarks would amount to sexual harassment of a women at workplace, and whether the previous conduct of the applicant that may tend to show sexual harassment of a woman when not made a part of the statement of articles of charge or statement of imputation of misconduct can be looked into. The other question thus noted by us was as to whether previous conduct of the applicant could be taken into consideration. We also noted that statement of Ms. Kamini was recorded separately by two enquiry officers and, therefore, we wanted to peruse the record, and inasmuch as only one statement was placed on record, we wanted to peruse the other statement. Shri Luthra, on that count, clarifies that Ms. Kamini had in fact made statement only once. To appreciate the controversy as noted above, it would be relevant to make a mention of the substance of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of which the enquiry was held, as set out in the articles of charge (Annexure-1), as also the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour in respect of articles of charge (Annexure-2), which read as follows: That the said Sh. Chattar Pal, Foreman Instructor, working at ITI Subzi Mandi has used abusive, unparliamentary language with sexually coloured remarks against his junior colleagues Mrs. Kamini, Supervisor Instructor of the Institute in the morning of 11th February, 1999.
That the conduct of Sh. Chattar Pal towards his junior colleague was wholly against the moral sanctions, decency and was offensive to the modesty of Mrs. Kamini. The conduct of Sh. Chattar Pal is also bound to have a demoralizing effect on working women in general and Mrs.
Kamini in particular.
The above conduct of Sh. Chhattar Pal amounts to sexual harassment of a women at her work place and is an act which is unbecoming of a Government Servant and is in contravention of the provision of Rule 3-C (1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Amendment Rules, 1998 read with Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
That during the sports activities conducted by III Subzi Mandi on 11.02.99 at about 10.00 A.M. at the time the attendance was marked, various staff members of Institute namely Sh. Chattar Pal, Foreman Instructor, Mrs. Kamini Supervisor Instructor, Smt. Sushila Sharma, Craft Instructor, Shri Hari Kishan, Craft Instructor and Sh. S.K. Suri, Craft Instructor were present. During the course of discussion Sh. Chattar Pal, Foreman Instruction who was the senior-most officials amongst those present used abusive and unparliamentary Supervisor Instructor, his junior colleague. The statements were made in the present of Sh. Prahlad Singh, Craft Instructor, Sh. Hari Kishan, Craft Instructor, Smt. Sushila Sharma, Craft Instructor.
The conduct of Sh. Chattar Pal towards his junior colleagues was wholly against moral sanctions, decency and was offensive to the modesty of Mrs. Kimini and the other staff members of the Institute.
The conduct of Sh. Chattar Pal is also bound to have effect on working women in general. The above conduct of Sh. Chattar Pal amounts to sexual harassment of a women at her work place and is an act which is unbecoming of an Government Servant and is in contravention of the provision of Rule 3-C (1) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Amendment Rules, 1998 read with Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
Perusal of Annexures-1 and 2 reproduced above would clearly manifest that the applicant was charged for using abusive and unparliamentary language with sexually coloured remarks against Ms. Kamini. It is this conduct alone, it is stated, which is bound to have a demoralizing effect on working women in general and Ms. Kamini in particular, and further that the said conduct amounts to sexual harassment of a woman at workplace. In the statement of misconduct or misbehaviour, reference is once again to one event dated 11.2.1999. It is also clear and is not in dispute as well that the abusive or unparliamentary language with sexually coloured remarks is said to have been used by the applicant in absence of the complainant. She was only told by her colleagues that the applicant had used such language against her. Whereas there may not be any dispute that mere use of abusive or unparliamentary language with sexually coloured remarks would be misconduct, but the significant question that arises is as to whether the same would amount to sexual harassment of a woman at workplace. Before we may, however, deal with the question as mentioned above, it would be relevant to see the previous conduct of the applicant which has been taken into consideration by the enquiry officer alone and no other authority. In that context, it would be relevant first to refer to the complaint made by Ms. Kamini. The incident, it may be recalled, is of 11.2.1999. On 12.2.1999, Ms. Kamini made a complaint to the Director, Directorate of Technical Training, relevant part whereof reads as follows: It is respectfully submitted that F.I. Sh. Chhattar Pal of this institute, indicating Sh. Hari Kishan C.I. in the Games Ground told me these words ------- and used filthy language, which can be given by Sh. Hari Kishan ji in writing. These filthy words were used in the presence of Sh. Prahlad Singh. At that time students and ITI staff were also present there. It was told to Sh. Hari Kishan to go and tell to (Kamini). It is his personal habit to use abusive language.
Many time he used to say, some time sit with me. From his actions it is felt that he is not a man of good character and does not keep better eyes. Drinks in ITI during working hours and uses abusive language. Earlier also many times he has misbehaved. I had ignored him many times. It seems that he has a dictionary of filthy words, from which he uses for me. Orally I have told you many times.Hence, you are requested to help me in this matter and I may be relieved from this exploitation.
Ms. Kamini also made a complaint to the enquiry officer, Directorate of Technical Education, on 15.2.1999, which, when translated into English, reads as follows: In the morning of 11.2.99 Sh. Chhattar Pal Foreman hurled abuses in the Games Grounds indicating Sh. Hari Kishan CI to me (Kamini) which are of 'use ki man ki'. When Prahlad Singh CI wanted to stop then Sh. Chhattar Pal told him that he has yet taken two pegs and also told, 'I have service more than the pubic hair of Kamini', and said Hari Kishan to tell that chikni that Chhattar Pal is not afraid from any one and many more abuses to which I was not mentally ready to hear, because I was astonished after hearing a few. Kindly take me out from this exploitation.
The blank in the complaint dated 12.2.1999, it is stated during the course of arguments, are for the words 'I have service more than the pubic hair of Kamini'. In the complaint dated 12.2.1999 Kamini did mention that the applicant asked her to sit with him many times and that earlier also on number of occasions he had misbehaved. There is no reference in the complaint dated 15.2.1999 with regard to previous conduct of the applicant. In the complaint dated 12.2.1999 also the allegation against the applicant is that he would ask Kamini to sit with him and that on many occasions he had misbehaved with her. What was the misbehaviour has not been mentioned even in the complaint dated 12.2.1999. It appears from records that the statement of Ms. Kamini as PW-1 was recorded on 12.7.2000. There does not appear to be any examination-in-chief. Ms. Kamini only stated that she had already given in writing the allegations against the applicant. After she had so stated, it appears, she was questioned or cross examined by the presenting officer and the applicant. On the same day, Ms. Kamini was cross examined by the applicant. Answers to some of the questions put to her by the defence assistant of the applicant or the enquiry officer are as follows: PW-1 Ms. Kamini replied that she was not present in the games ground on the date and time of the incident.
PW-1 Ms. Kamini told that generally Charged Officer uses abusive language as he is habitual but not in particular. She also stated that the charged officer never used abusive language against her.
She further stated that on the first day of her joining at ITI Subzi Mandi, the then Principal Mr. J.Kujur, directed her to contact Sh.Chhattar Pal as he was the floor incharge at that time. On my first meeting with Mr. Chhattar Pal, he told me that she has the liberty to come and leave the Institution at her own will. This happened in the month of August, 97.
PW-1 Ms. Kamini replied about the sensuality on the part of Sh.
Chhattar Pal and also about the posture of his sitting and the way he stared on her. This was quoted to the Inquiry Officer. Number of occasions, she has complained the then Principal about drunken habit of the charged officer Sh. Chhattar Pal that too during office hours. She also stated one instance of sub nature, on one occasion when PW-1 (Ms. Kamini) was leaving the Institution. In the evening, I had gone to the room of the Charged Officer to mark her attendance at departure time. The door of the Charged Officer was closed and she knocked the door and heard the voice of charged officer who was drinking at that time.
Because, Mr. Chhattar Pal normally uses such abusive language in normal routine also.
It appears that the enquiry was then adjourned to 21.7.2000, and then to 4.8.2000. However, the actual proceedings thereafter, it appears, started only on 14.7.2003, when once again, Ms. Kamini was re-examined by the enquiry officer in a question-answer form. Out of the 14 questions put to her, questions 8 and 9 with their replies are as follows: Q.8. Did Sushila Madam inform you about the reason as to why Mr.
Chhattarpal had abused you? A. Because, Mr. Chhattarpal normally uses such abusive language in normal routine also.
The enquiry officer in his report, on the basis of statement made by Ms. Kamini dated 12.7.2000, observed as follows: One may also be inclined to believe that the CO must have been in the habit of drinking during office hours and his indecent, sexually coloured, abusive outbursts could be a natural corollary of the frustrations entailing his unfruitful advances, as has been stated by Mrs. Kamini in her depositions during cross-examination by the DA/CO on 12.07.2000.
There is indeed some evidence with regard to the previous conduct of the applicant emanating from cross-examination adverted to Ms. Kamini, mention whereof has been made above.
7. The disciplinary authority, after referring to the facts of the case and tracing out the history of the case, observed as follows: I have gone through the papers on record including the Inquiry Report dated 7.7.04 of the I.O., the defence brief dated 7.7.04 of the C.O., and the representation dated 16.07.04 of the C.O. Two court witnesses namely Shri Juwel Kujur, the then Principal, and Shri C.K.Rana, the then Office Supdt. ITI, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, when the alleged incident is said to have taken place, were called on the request of C.O., and his Defence Assistant. They deposed before the I.O. and denied receipt of any written complaint dated 12.02.99 by the Complainant. Their deposition before the I.O. are contradictory as the complainant gave the complaint in writing to the Principal on 12.02.99 duly countersigned by Shri Hari Kishan, CI Shri Prahlad Singh, CI, and Smt. Sushila, CI, as witnesses, which was marked by Shri Juwel Kujur, Principal, to Sh. C.K.Rana, the Office Supdt. Who in turn marked the same to one Shri Shashi Kumar, UDC, on 12.12.99 diarised at Sl. No. 171/IT IS. The prosecution witnesses in their deposition before the I.O., have confirmed the incident. The defence witnesses, 14 in number who appeared before the I.O. during their examination have submitted that the alleged incident did not take place but during cross-examination have submitted that the alleged incident did not take place but during cross-examination, their outburst from the CO being placed at considerable distance on the ground. Therefore, if they did not hear anything how can they certify that some incident did not take place at all. The contention of the C.O. that the charge has been framed against him without the alleged incident having taken place due to the fact that he got the admissions of the students cancelled who had obtained admissions on the basis of forged mark sheet and Shri Prahlad Singh had some grudge against the C.O., it is very much out of place to think that some lady staff member shall frame the charge of sexual harassment against the C.O. Both the issues are separate and not inter-linked.
The appellate authority, while agreeing with the conclusions of the disciplinary authority, observed that 'the charge of sexual harassment against Shri Chattar Pal has been proved on the basis of statement of witnesses and documents placed on record'.' During the entire course of inquiry, the three witnesses stood their ground and were cross-examined by the charged official and his defence assistant. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on record.
8. From the relevant evidence connected with the charge against the applicant that his conduct amounts to sexual harassment of a woman at her workplace, what we thus find is that in the complaint dated 12.2.1999 the complainant Ms. Kamini stated that the applicant was not a man of good character; would not keep better eyes; would drink in ITI during working hours; would use abusive language; and further that on number of occasions he had misbehaved. The allegations against the applicant in the complaint aforesaid are of his peculiar bad habits, like being a man of bad character who would not keep better eyes and who would drink in ITI during working hours, and would use abusive language. These allegations are general in which the applicant would indulge for all and not for the complainant alone. The other allegation is that the applicant had on number of occasions misbehaved with complainant. What was the misbehaviour has not been mentioned in the complaint. While, however, appearing as PW-1, Ms. Kamini stated that on the first day of her joining the ITI, the principal directed her to contact the applicant who was the floor incharge, and on her first meeting with him, he told her that she had the liberty to come and leave the institution at her own will. She also made a mention of the posture in which the applicant would sit and stare at her. She also stated that on one occasion when she had gone to the room of the applicant to mark her attendance, and when she knocked the door, she heard the voice of the applicant who was drinking at that time.
9. Previous conduct of the applicant does appear to be at least bordering on overtures of the applicant seeking sexual favours. We may, however, hasten to add that the basic allegation against him was that he was a man of bad character who would keep an evil eye on the opposite sex, was abusive in nature and would have a great penchant for liquor. The significant question, as mentioned above, however, is as to whether the previous conduct of the applicant can be taken into consideration for returning a finding of guilt on the charge of sexual exploitation by him of woman at workplace, when the same has not even been remotely mentioned in the articles of charge or the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. It is significant to mention that far from making a mention of any particular incident or behaviour of the applicant towards Ms. Kamini, there is not even a general allegation that he had been misbehaving or trying to sexually exploit her prior to the incident of 11.2.1999. We have given our anxious thoughts to the question as mentioned above, and are of the view that unless previous conduct of the applicant was subject matter of charge emanating from the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour, the evidence led on that behalf cannot be looked into.
The applicant was not called upon to show cause with regard to his previous behaviour, and it would be against principles of natural justice and against settled law to return a finding of guilt on the basis of evidence which was not subject matter of charge in the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.
10. We may once again, reiterate that in the statement of imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour and the articles of charge, the allegation against the applicant is of use of abusive, unparliamentary language with sexually coloured remarks against Ms. Kamini in the morning of 11.2.1999. It is this conduct alone, which again has been stated to be amounting to sexual harassment of a woman at her workplace and an act unbecoming of a government servant. Concededly, Ms. Kamini was not present when the applicant is stated to have used abusive or sexually coloured language towards her. She was admittedly at a different venue conducting a sports meet, whereas the applicant was at another venue also conducting a sports meet. The applicant did not address the abusive language to Ms. Kamini in person. That apart, the language used by the applicant may be abusive, but would that amount to hurling abuses or would be termed as sexually coloured remarks, is the question. We have given our anxious thoughts to the question referred to above, and are of the view that whereas the abusive language used by the applicant would also have a demoralizing effect on working women in general and Ms. Kamini in particular, but the same cannot be said to be sexually coloured remarks, and thus exploitation of a female at workplace.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the issue whether an action of the superior against a female employee which is against moral sanctions and does not withstand test of decency and modesty, would amount to sexual harassment, in the matter of Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra . Facts of the case reveal that the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was working as Private Secretary to Chairman of the appellant-Council. It was alleged that on 12.8.1988, the respondent tried to molest a woman employee of the Council, who was at the relevant time working as a Clerk-cum-Typist. She was not competent or trained to take dictations.
Respondent, however, insisted that she would go with him to the Business Centre at Taj Palace Hotel for taking dictation from the Chairman. Under pressure of the respondent, she went to take dictation from the Chairman. While she was waiting for the Director in the room, respondent tried to sit too close to her and despite her objection did not give up his objectionable behaviour. She later on took dictation from the Director, and the respondent told her to type it at the Business Centre located in the basement of the Hotel. He offered to help her so that her typing was not found fault with by the Director, and 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 draft typed matter was corrected by Director who asked her to retype the same. The respondent again went with her to the Business Centre and repeated his overtures. She told the respondent that she would leave the place if he continued to behave like that. He, however, did not stop. He tried to molest her physically in the lift also while coming to the basement but she saved herself by pressing the emergency button. The respondent was removed from service pursuant to a departmental enquiry against him.
Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was allowed. The learned Single Judge returned a finding that the respondent had only tried to molest and not actually molested the complainant and that he had not managed to make the slightest physical contact with her, and held that such an act of the respondent was not sufficient ground for his dismissal from service. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench in the Letters Patent Appeal. In the circumstances aforestated, the Council filed Appeal by Special Leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. While dealing with as to whether an action of the superior against a female employee which is against moral sanctions and does not withstand test of decency and modesty, would amount to sexual harassment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon its earlier judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan , wherein some guidelines were issued on the subject. As there was no law enacted by that time with regard to sexual harassment of women at places of work, which is the position till date, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by judicial law making process, defined sexual harassment as follows: For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether directly or by implication) as: (e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.
While analyzing the definitions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: 26. An analysis of the above definition shown that sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones, whether directly or by implication, particularly when submission to or rejection of such a conduct by the female employee was capable of being used for effecting the employment of the female employee and unreasonably interfering with her work performance and had the effect of creating an intimidating or hostile working environment for her.
12. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, analyzing the definition of sexual harassment as extracted above, we are in no doubt whatsoever that even though, the applicant might have used choicest abuses, the same shall not even remotely lead to an inference of the applicant making demand or request for sexual favour. The abusive outburst of the applicant may be actuated because of his disliking or even hatred towards complainant, for the reasons known to him, and the same may cause anguish and harassment as well, but the remarks cannot be termed to be sexually coloured. The same could be said to be so if they may have overtones or undertones of sexual advances, or request for sexual favour, but the same is not indeed the tenor of the abusive language indulged in by the applicant.
There is also absolutely no evidence led in this case also to show that if the complainant was to reject the overtures of the applicant, she would be harmed in any manner whatsoever in her service graph. The applicant, in our view, cannot be held guilty for sexually harassing a woman at workplace, even though at the same time it has to be held that the behaviour, in which he had indulged himself, would also be misconduct calling for some punishment. Inasmuch as, while fixing the quantum of punishment, the disciplinary and appellate authorities have held the applicant guilty of sexual harassment of woman at workplace as well, the orders passed by them dated 20.7.2004 and 5.11.2004 respectively, need to be set aside. We order accordingly. We, however, remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for re-determining the quantum of punishment by excluding the charge of sexual harassment of woman at workplace. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
13. Before we may, however, part with this order, we may mention that the applicant has already superannuated, and it would be in the fitness of things if the decision with regard to quantum of punishment, as mentioned above, is taken as early as possible. We, thus order that the disciplinary authority shall deal with the issue as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.