Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010090582024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2401/2024 KANAK DAS S/O- BABEJIA DAS, R/O- HOUSE NO. 2, UPPER LUITPUR, KHARGULI, GUWAHATI-781004, DIST. KAMRUP(M), ASSAM AND FORMERLY SERVING AS THE JUNIOR LIBRARIAN, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, GUWAHATI BENCH, BHANGAGARH, GHY-781005, ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35 COPERNICUS MARG NEW DELHI-110001. 3:THE JOINT REGISTRAR /DEPUTY REGISTRAR CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH RAJGARH ROAD BHANGAGARH GHY-781005. 4:THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH RAJGARH ROAD Page No.# 2/6 BHANGAGARH GHY-781005. 5:THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CUM CHAIRMAN CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH 61/35 COPERNICUS MARGE NEW DELHI-110001 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R J DAS, MR. N BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR H GUPTA BEFORE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 14.10.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. Rupam Jyoti Das, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is alleged to have made a sexually coloured comment to one of the LDAs of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in an inebriated state. His case was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the CAT which comprised two independent persons, viz., an Advocate and the other, an office bearer of the Bar Association. It was ultimately found that the allegation against the petitioner was correct. He was put to a Page No.# 3/6 departmental proceeding with one person out of the ICC having been appointed as the Enquiry Officer. 3. Three witnesses were examined, out of whom, two did not support the accusation. They only said that they could not hear the exact statement made by the petitioner on the fateful day. However, one of them was not found to be trustworthy for the reason that his demeanour was such that it appears that he was not making a correct statement. Nevertheless, the Disciplinary Authority, relying upon the statement of one of the witnesses and the victim, held that such sexually coloured remarks were made by the petitioner against a Grade-III staff of the Tribunal and that too in an inebriated state. The Disciplinary Authority, after having considered the matter, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service and reduction of 1/3rd of pension for the remainder of his life. 4. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the reduction of 1/3rd of pension amount was limited to only 5 years. It appears that from May, 2024, the full pension to the petitioner has been restored. 5. The petitioner has raised several issues in the present writ petition, but primarily that there was no procedural fairness in the fact finding process by the ICC. According to him, the ICC was Page No.# 4/6 improperly constituted as there was no 3rd party NGO or an expert familiar with sexual harassment as mandated by the Office Memorandum dated July 16, 2015. This made the entire process defective, which fact was not taken into account by the Tribunal. The other contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before this Court is that the Disciplinary Authority completely relied on hearsay evidence and in a very unfair manner discredited the evidence of PW-3 only on the ground of his demeanour and mannerism while deposing before the Disciplinary Authority. The witnesses made some exculpatory statements and also, of their own, introduced another charge that the petitioner had, in the past, misbehaved with other women as well. Lastly, it was submitted that personal bias pervaded all through during investigation and the departmental proceeding stages and since the Disciplinary Authority was one of the members of the ICC, it was almost given that the fact arrived at by the ICC would be validated, despite lack of evidence in the departmental proceeding. This is also reflected in the punishment imposed which is in the nature of a double whammy as the petitioner was compulsorily retired and 1/3rd of his pension was reduced for infinity, which, of course, was later reduced to 5 years. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, is that the Tribunal took Page No.# 5/6 a hyper-technical view of the entire issue and failed to review the proportionality of the penalty; and the unfair treatment meted out to the petitioner. 6. We have examined the records of this case as also the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the Appellate Authority. 7. The issue raised by the petitioner herein was considered by the Tribunal in a correct perspective. The Tribunal took note of the fact that independent persons were made part of the ICC and that the petitioner was granted all opportunities in the fact finding enquiry as also in the departmental enquiry. With respect to the faulty constitution of the ICC, the Tribunal was very specific in dealing with the contention of the petitioner. The evidence of the witnesses was examined in detail by the Tribunal and it was found that there was no doubt that a highly sexually coloured statement was made by the petitioner in presence of the witnesses. 8. Considering the case in all its perspective, we do not find any reason to interfere, especially when the disproportionate sentencing was interfered with by the Appellate Authority and the reduction of 1/3rd pension for his entire life was reduced to reduction only for 5 years and the restoration of full pension to the petitioner from May, 2024. Page No.# 6/6 9. The writ petition is thus dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant