W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 1 of 16

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 15.01.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 31.01.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 31.01.2026

+ W.P.(C) 4181/2022 & CM APPL. 12528/2022, CM APPL.

12530/2022, CM APPL. 21213/2024

SH. SAPAN SUMAN .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Mr.

Vaibhav Agnihotri, Mr. Ankit

Singh, Mr. Vidit Pratap Singh,

Mr. Harshit Kiran, Ms. Suruchi

Khandelwal and Ms. Khushi

Anand, Advs.

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC

with Ms. Himanshi Singh, Ms.

Monalisha Pradhan, Advocates.

Mr. Vinod Sawant, Law

Officer, Mr. Avinash Yadav,

I/C (C.R. Vig.) and Mr.

Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF for

Union of India.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.:

1. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner assails the

correctness of an Office Order dated 02.02.2015 issued by the

Respondent No.2, leading to an Inquiry Report dated 01.11.2021 and a

consequent Show Cause Notice dated 09.02.2022 issued against the

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 2 of 16

Petitioner.

BRIEF FACTUAL MATRIX :

2. The issues requiring adjudication of this Court in the present

Petition are two-folded. Firstly, whether the Respondent No.2 has

failed to act in compliance with the prescribed rules under the Central

Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965

[hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1965’] and the Office

Memorandum dated 16.07.2015 issued by the Department of

Personnel and Training (‘DoPT’) [hereinafter referred to as OM of

2015] thereby rendering the inquiry report and all consequential

proceedings void ab initio in eyes of law. Secondly, the question arises

whether a constitutional court should interfere at a stage when final

order in the Disciplinary Proceedings, arising from the complaint of

sexual harassment at workplace, has not yet been passed, in absence

of patent illegality.

3. Since the issues before this Court pertains solely with respect to

the misapplication of law, it is considered neither necessary nor

appropriate to set out the detailed factual matrix leading to the present

case. In view thereof, only the facts relevant and/or material for the

adjudication of the issues at hand shall be referred to hereinafter.

4. The Respondent No.2 in the month of November 2014, issued a

Standing Order No. 08/2014 [hereinafter referred to as ‘SO of 2014’]

implementing the provisions of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment

of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act,

2013 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2013’] and reiterating the

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 3 of 16

applicability of relevant service rules to the Charged Officers. On

17.01.2015, the Respondent No.4 filed a complaint of sexual

harassment against the Petitioner and his senior, Mr. R. Rajasekaran

under Rule 3(c) of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964

[hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1964’].

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, the Respondent No.2 vide

Order No. C.IV.-01/2015-Vig dated 02.02.2015 [hereinafter referred

to as ‘Impugned Order/IO of 2015’] constituted CLICC/Respondent

No.3 for inquiry of the aforesaid complaint, in accordance with the

statutory provisions prevailing at the time, including the Act of 2013,

SO of 2014 and Rule 14 of the Rules of 1965. Parallelly, the OM of

2015 was issued by the DoPT, prescribing implementation of ‘Steps

for Conduct of Inquiry in complaints of Sexual Harassment’ to be

adopted by the Complaints Committees of the respective departments.

6. Whereafter, the proceedings before Respondent No.3 were

conducted in stages, with changes in its composition over time to

ensure continuity. The Respondent No.3, while adhering to the

procedural guidelines as per the mandatory relevant statutory

provisions, afforded the Petitioner multiple opportunities to be heard,

including the right to submit his written submission, raise objection

and provide documents and witnesses supporting his case.

7. Consequently, Respondent No.3 upon appreciation of

statements and evidence produced before it by the Petitioner and

Respondent No.4 submitted the impugned Inquiry Report dated

01.11.2021 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Report/IR of 2021]

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 4 of 16

to the Disciplinary Authority. As per the IR of 2021, the imputations

of misconduct against the Petitioner stood proved as he was found

indulged in sexually harassing the Respondent No.4, thereby

recommending strict disciplinary actions to be initiated against the

Petitioner. Resultantly, the Respondent No.1/Disciplinary Authority,

while accepting the IR of 2021, issued the impugned Show Cause

Notice dated 09.02.2022 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned

Notice/IN of 2022’], calling upon the Petitioner to file its written

representation.

8. Aggrieved, by the IN of 2022, IR of 2021 and IO of 2015, the

present petition has been filed assailing their correctness.

9. This Court has heard learned counsel representing the parties

and with their able assistance has perused the paperbook.

CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES :

10. Before delving into the examination of the arguments raised by

the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce the relevant

provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, which forma a substantial part of the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties:

“14. Procedure for imposing major penalties

(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are

grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct

or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire

into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public

Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to

inquire into the truth thereof.

Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within

the meaning of rule 3 C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules,

1964, the Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or

Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall be

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 5 of 16

deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary

authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee

shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the

Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of

sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance

with the procedure laid down in these rules.

Explanation.—

(i) Where the disciplinary authority itself holds the inquiry, any

reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) to the

inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to the

disciplinary authority.

(ii) Where the disciplinary authority appoints a retired Government

servant as inquiring authority, any reference in sub-rule (7) to sub-

rule (20) and in sub-rule (22) shall include such authority.

(3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry against a Government

servant under this rule and rule 15, the disciplinary authority shall

draw up or cause to be drawn up-

(i) the substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour

into definite and distinct articles of charge;

(ii) a statement of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour in

support of each article of charge, which shall contain-

(a) a statement of all relevant facts including any admission or

confession made by the Government servant;

(b) a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the

articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

(8) (a) The Government servant may take the assistance of any other

Government servant posted in any office either at his headquarters or

at the place where the inquiry is held, to present the case on his

behalf, but may not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose, unless

the Presenting Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is a

legal practitioner, or, the disciplinary authority, having regard to the

circumstances of the case, so permits; Provided that the Government

servant may take the assistance of any other Government servant

posted at any other station, if the inquiring authority having regard to

the circumstances of the case, and for reasons to be recorded in

writing, so permits.

Note : The Government servant shall not take the assistance of any

other Government servant who has three pending disciplinary cases

on hand in which he has to give assistance.

(b) The Government servant may also take the assistance of a retired

Government servant to present the case on his behalf, subject to such

conditions as may be specified by the President from time to time by

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 6 of 16

general or special order in this behalf.”

CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, while assailing the entire

proceedings undertaken by Respondent No.3, has made the following

submissions:

11.1 It has been argued that the IO of 2015, through which the

Respondent No.3 came to be constituted, is illegal and in clear

violation of Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1965. According to the

Petitioner, the said order was neither issued at the behest of

Respondent No.1 nor after obtaining its approval, despite the

Respondent No.1 being the appropriate authority to approve the

initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

11.2 Secondly, it is contended that the Respondent No.2, while

forwarding the IR of 2021 to the Respondent No.1 and issuing the IN

of 2022, failed to appreciate the binding effect of OM of 2015, issued

by the DoPT. It was argued that under the said OM, the IR of 2021

was merely in the nature of a preliminary report and could not form

the basis for initiation of disciplinary proceedings until and unless it

was formally accepted by the competent authority.

11.3 Further, with respect to the OM of 2015, it has been argued by

the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the inquiry contemplated

thereunder is to be conducted in three stages. As per the said OM,

while the Respondent No.3 may assume the role of the Inquiry

Authority, such change occurs only at the second stage of the process.

Since the second stage was never formally initiated in the present

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 7 of 16

case, the assumption of jurisdiction by Respondent No.3 is contended

to be without the authority of law.

11.4 Thirdly, it was urged that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated

by a patent violation of Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1965, in as much as

no Article of Charge was ever issued to the Petitioner, rather the

complaint filed by the Respondent No.4 was treated as an Article of

Charge. In this regard, reference has been made to Rules 14(2) and

14(3) of the Rules of 1965, to argue that the stage of issuance of

Article of Charge, under the latter rule is distinct from that of the

approval of initiation of inquiry under the former rule, both of which

are mandatory. Against this backdrop, it is their case that failure to

provide a Article of Charge to the Petitioner has deprived him of a fair

opportunity to defend himself, thereby violating the principles of

natural justice and rendering the inquiry without jurisdiction.

11.5 Fourthly, it has been contended that the inquiry initiated in 2015

is non est in law, as the principal allegations were against his senior

officer who was exempted from the proceedings on 24.11.2016 upon

acceptance of his written apology by the Respondent No.4.

Consequently, the continuation of proceedings against the Petitioner,

including the issuance of the IN of 2022, was without jurisdiction and

a nullity in law.

11.6 Lastly, it has been argued that the Respondent No.3 has acted

arbitrarily and with manifest bias by selectively deviating from the

prescribed procedure to the benefit of Respondent No. 4, while

summarily rejecting the Petitioner’s lawful request to engage a legal

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 8 of 16

practitioner as Defence Assistant, despite such engagement being

permissible under Rule 14(8)(a) of the Rules of 1965.

CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NOs. 1 TO 3:

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has

made the following submissions:

12.1 Controverting the arguments advanced by the Petitioner with

respect to the OM of 2015, it has been argued that the complaint was

filed in January 2015, at that point in time, the governing legal

framework comprises of the Act of 2013, SO of 2014, Rule 14 of the

Rules of 1965 and the applicable service regulations. It has been

argued that the OM of 2015, was not in existence when the present

complaint was received and therefore has no application to the facts of

the present case.

12.2 It is further argued that as per the law and rules applicable

during the relevant time, complaints of sexual harassment were to be

directly referred to the designated CLICC, without any requirement of

a preliminary inquiry or issuance of a formal Article of charge. In

accordance with these provisions, the Respondent No.2 duly framed

two Articles of Charge against the Petitioner and his senior, based on

the allegations made in the complaint, along with providing the

Petitioner with the copy of the Complaint.

12.3 As far as the argument pertaining to the prior of approval of the

Respondent No.1, it has been submitted that once a complaint is

received, it is the statutory duty of the employer to refer it to the

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 9 of 16

Committee, without approval from the Respondent No.1. In the

present case, the IR of 2021 was duly accepted by the Respondent

No.1, thereby providing the Petitioner an opportunity to submit his

representation within 15 days, in compliance with Rule 15(2) of the

Rules of 1965.

12.4 It is the case of the Respondents that the IR of Respondent No.3

merely functions as a recommendation, and the relevant Disciplinary

Authority alone has the competence of impose penalty. As such it is

the case of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the present petition is liable

to be rejected, being pre-mature, reliance in this regard has been

placed on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in W.P. 59536/2017

captioned Sri B.K. Mohanty v. Hindustan Aeronautics Limited and

Others and the judgment of this Court in W.P. (C) 4756/2014

captioned Dr. Sonali Badhe v. Ashish Chandra Singh & Others.

12.5 Lastly, with respect to the arguments raised regarding the

jurisdiction of the Respondent No.3 to initiate inquiry a reference is

made to the proviso of Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1965, to argue that

the complaint committee established in each department, for inquiring

into complaints filed under Rule 3(c) of Rules of 1964, shall be

deemed to be the inquiring authority appointed by the Disciplinary

Authority. Accordingly, the Respondent No.3 had the requisite right

and authority to initiate inquiry proceedings.

ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:

13. At the outset, it becomes pertinent to delineate the precise stage

of the proceedings at which the present petition has been instituted. A

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 10 of 16

perusal of the record reveals that it is undisputed that no final order in

the disciplinary proceeding has yet been passed pursuant to the IN of

2022. Nevertheless, the Petitioner has approached this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 assailing the IO of 2015,

the IR of 2021 and the IN of 2021, at a stage when the disciplinary

proceedings remain sub-judice before the competent authority.

14. The law regarding the maintainability of a writ petition,

specifically, at the stage of issuance of Show Cause Notice or Article

of charge, is well settled. In this regard, a reference may be made to

the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty

Satyanarayana

1

, wherein the Court has authoritatively held that a writ

petition challenging a show-cause notice or a Article of Charge is

ordinarily premature, as such a notice, by itself, does not give rise to

any civil consequences or adverse order upon the noticee.

15. However, an exception has also been carved out by the

Supreme Court in Kunisetty Satyanarayana (Supra), clarifying that

the extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be invoked at the notice stage if

the notice so issued, is found to be wholly without jurisdiction or is

patently illegal. It is in this backdrop that, we now proceed to examine

the facts of the present case, particularly in the context of the

argument advanced by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

Respondent No.3 was not validly constituted under Section 14(2) of

the Rules of 1965 and lacked the authority to initiate the inquiry

proceedings.

1

(2006) 12 SCC 28

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 11 of 16

16. Notably, in the present case, the challenge to IO of 2015 and the

IR of 2021 is essentially collateral to, and occasioned by, the issuance

of the IN of 2022, which is purely in the nature of a show-cause notice

issued by a Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the report submitted

by Respondent No.3. Additionally, it also bears importance that the

disciplinary process is still in progress, and the Petitioner has been

expressly called upon to submit his representation under Rule 15(2) of

Rules of 1965.

17. With respect to the objection raised by the Petitioner regarding

the constitution of Respondent No.3, this Court is convinced by the

submissions made on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 3, who have

correctly pointed out that, by virtue of proviso to Rule 14(2) of the

Rules of 1965, the Respondent No.3 is deemed to be the Inquiring

Authority for all complaints filed under Rule 3(c) of the Rules of

1964, and that the report filed by it functions as the inquiry report for

the purpose of the disciplinary rules.

18. In view of the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1965, this

Court is unable to discern any exceptional circumstances that would

justify a departure from the statutory provisions, thereby rendering the

entire inquiry proceedings, null and void, making it amenable to the

extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

19. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also argued that the

inquiry proceedings initiated by Respondent No.3 stands vitiated on

account of non-compliance of Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1965, since

no separate Article of Charge was issued and the complaint itself was

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 12 of 16

treated as the Article of Charge. However, a perusal of the

proceedings dated 18.03.2015 before Respondent No.3, forming part

of the present petition, evidently shows that, as on the said date, the

Petitioner had been duly served with the complaint along with all

annexures thereto. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the purpose

of issuance of Article of Charge under Rule 14(3) of the Rules of 1965

is to make the delinquent aware of the specific imputation of

misconduct, thereby affording him a reasonable opportunity to

understand the nature and extent of the allegations made against him.

20. Moreover, the purpose of holding domestic inquiry/disciplinary

proceeding is also to grant an appropriate opportunity to the charged

officer to prove his defence and establish that he is not guilty of the

misconduct being alleged. Articles of Charges as the name suggest are

the substances of the misconduct being alleged by the

employer/complainant. Once the complaint containing the alleged

misconduct has been supplied, the Petitioner was apprised of the

alleged misconduct. The purpose of supply of Articles of Charges

stands fulfilled, once the complaint containing the alleged misconduct

has been supplied. Moreover, the Petitioner has failed to show any

prejudice suffered by him upon failure to supply Articles of Charges.

21. Domestic inquiry is a fact-finding inquiry which is not

governed by strict procedural provisions such as Evidence Act or

other statutes alike. The purpose of domestic inquiry is to follow the

principles of natural justice, while granting the charged officer

sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence. Originally, efforts were

made to keep the domestic inquiry/disciplinary proceedings

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 13 of 16

unaffected by procedural wrangles which result in delay adversely

impacting the complainant and the employer. Hence, while

interpreting the provisions of domestic inquiry, efforts must be made

to look at the substance and not the form or the procedure. Once the

principles of natural justice have been followed by granting sufficient

opportunity to the charged officer, it is not expected from the Courts

to interfere with violations of procedural provision, if any.

Expeditious disposal of the domestic inquiry is need of the hour and

would be in the interest of everyone, especially in the complaints of

sexual harassment at workplace.

22. It is for this purpose that a multi-member committee,

constituted to inquire into such allegations, was envisaged in the

judgment passed in Vishakha & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

2

,

which was followed by statutory enactment in the form of Act of

2013. The object sought to be achieved by the enactment should not

be allowed to be frustrated by the rules of procedure, which are for the

purpose of advancing the cause of justice.

23. In the present case, admittedly, the complaint was handed over

to the Petitioner, consequently, the alleged omission in issuance of a

distinct Article of Charge can, at best, be regarded as a procedural

irregularity which does not go to the root of jurisdiction, particularly

when no prejudice has been shown to have been caused to the

Petitioner’s substantive rights. Additionally, the Petitioner is also

estopped from taking up the issue at this stage once he has participated

in the disciplinary inquiry and report has been submitted.

2

(1997) 6 SCC 241

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 14 of 16

24. Moreover, the Petitioner, despite being represented at various

stages of the inquiry proceedings, did not raise any objection to the

continuation of the inquiry on the ground that he has not been supplied

Articles of Charges and as such was unaware of the precise charges.

On the contrary, he actively participated in the proceedings and by his

categorical defence statement dated 31.08.2020, expressly stated that

he did not wish to produce any further witnesses or documents.

25. The Petitioner, having actively participated in the inquiry, and

concluded his defence before Respondent No.3, cannot now raise a

plea that no proper Article of Charge was issued, such a plea would

amount to approbation and reprobation in the same breath.

Additionally, a perusal of his statement reveals that it was the

Petitioner himself who refused to participate in the procedural

opportunities provided to him during the course of inquiry, having

categorically stated that he was not inclined to produce any witness or

further documents in support of his case. The relevant extract from the

Defence Statement before the Respondent No.3 is reproduced

hereinbelow:

“I would like to reiterate that the whole case is a conspiracy against

me by planting a story and evidences. But I have already brought

forth all the inconsistencies and lacuna in the story. I don’t think that

anything further is required to sustain my defense and I am not

inclined to produce any witness or further documents in the case.

Relevant materials and full narration of the events are being attached

with this statement. And I request the committee to decide the case in

the light of my submission and give me the justice that I deserve.”

26. To the extent the Petitioner contends that the OM of 2015

should operate retrospectively to invalidate or reset the proceedings

commenced in early 2015, this Court is unable to accept such a

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 15 of 16

proposition. In this regard, the chronology of the present case holds

significance, undisputedly, the complaint was filed in January, 2015,

whereas the Respondent No.3 was constituted by way of IO of 2015,

on 02.02.2015, and the proceedings were already underway when the

said OM came into effect on 16.07.2015.

27. It is important to bear in mind that the OM is merely an

administrative procedural guideline, which, in the ordinary course,

applies prospectively unless it is expressly made retrospective. The

Petitioner has failed to point out any provision in the OM suggesting

that it is intended to operate retrospectively leading to nullification of

proceedings already commenced. It is pertinent to note that the OM is

not a substantive statute conferring vested rights, but is merely

intended to streamline the process, and, therefore, cannot be

effectuated retrospectively to annul inquiries that had already been

validly initiated under the Act of 2013 and the Rules of 1964 and

1965.

28. To accept the Petitioner’s argument would mean that every

sexual-harassment inquiry set in motion prior to 16.07.2015 would

have to be aborted and restarted, thereby leading to inordinate delays

and potential denial of justice to the complainants, an outcome

antithetical to both the Act of 2013 and the DoPT’s own emphasis on

expeditious and effective disposal of such complaints.

29. As far the arguments advanced by the Petitioner with respect to

the merits of the case is concerned, in particular, the alleged denial of

the right to engage a legal practitioner and the continuation of

W.P.(C) No. 4181/2022 Page 16 of 16

proceedings against the Petitioner alone after his senior was exempted,

such contentions are left open to be urged before the

competent/disciplinary authority.

CONCLUSION:

30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in

the present Petition.

31. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed.

32. Needless to state that the observations made herein shall not be

construed as an expression of opinion on the findings of the inquiry

report, which are subject to examination by the

Competent/Disciplinary Authority independently and uninfluenced by

the observations made hereinabove.

33. All the pending applications stand closed.

ANIL KSHETARPAL , J.

AMIT MAHAJAN , J.

JANUARY 31, 2026

jai/hr