R R BHARATI v. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA, Central Administrative Tribunal, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The applicant, Shri R.R. Bharati, working as Deputy Director in the Sports Authority of India (SAI), was issued a charge memo dated 27.06.2019 alleging acts of sexual harassment in the workplace. Prior to the charge memo, a preliminary inquiry was conducted regarding allegations against the applicant involving a woman employee. The applicant contended that in April 2019, the respondents decided to transfer him from Delhi to Lucknow, and to justify this transfer—which he claimed was otherwise illegal—fabricated complaints were made against him. Despite filing a detailed reply denying the allegations, the charge memo was issued. He also raised objections regarding defects in the composition of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), procedural irregularities by the Disciplinary Authority (DA), and denial of opportunity in the disciplinary process. The ICC submitted its report on 04/15.09.2020, which was furnished to the applicant, who was then required to submit his reply concerning possible punishment. This Original Application (O.A.) was filed challenging the charge memo.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the charge memo dated 27.06.2019 issued against the applicant on allegations of sexual harassment was valid and sustainable.

Whether the composition of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was proper and free from disability or bias.

Whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Disciplinary Authority were in accordance with principles of natural justice, including the opportunity to be heard.

Whether the transfer of the applicant from Delhi to Lucknow was lawful or was justified by fabricated complaints.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

The transfer from Delhi to Lucknow in April 2019 was not legal and was justified by fabricated complaints against him.

He denied the allegations of sexual harassment through a detailed reply after being issued a preliminary notice.

There were defects in the composition of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), affecting the validity of the inquiry.

The disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Disciplinary Authority were flawed, including denial of opportunity to the applicant.

Respondents' Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court noted that the charge memo dated 27.06.2019 was preceded by a preliminary inquiry into the alleged sexual harassment. The applicant actively participated in the disciplinary proceedings, and the ICC submitted its report on 04/15.09.2020, which was provided to the applicant for response concerning punishment. At this stage, the court found no basis to interfere with the charge memo. Regarding the objection about the composition of the ICC, the court observed that the objection was vague and general. If any particular member suffered from disability, the applicant could raise this through a representation. Consequently, the court granted the applicant an additional 10 days to file such representation. The court thus declined to interfere with the impugned charge memo at this stage, emphasizing procedural propriety and ongoing disciplinary process.

Holding and Implications

The Original Application (O.A.) was dismissed with observations allowing the applicant 10 more days to file a representation regarding the ICC composition. There was no order as to costs.

The decision directly affects the parties by upholding the charge memo and allowing the disciplinary process to continue without interference at this stage. No new precedent or broader legal principle was established by this ruling.

R R BHARATI v. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

OA No.1635/2020

Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No.1635/2020

This the 26^thday of October, 2020

(Through Video Conferencing)

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)

Shri R.R. Bharati (Deputy Director, Sports Authority of India) R/o F-168, Phase 2, New Palam Vihar District Gurugram, Haryana Currently posted at Netaji Subhas Regional Centre, Sarojini Nagar Kanpur Road, Lucknow.

.. Applicant

(By Advocate : Shri S. Nandakumar with Shri Harkesh Parashar)

Versus

1. Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Youth Affairs & Sports (Department of Sports)

Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. Director General Sports Authority of India (SAI) J.N. Stadium Complex

East Gate No.10, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003.

3. Director Personnel Sports Authority of India (SAI) J.N. Stadium Complex

East Gate No.10, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003.

4. Chairperson, ICC SAI Head Office J.N. Stadium Complex East Gate No.10, Lodhi Road New Delhi-110003

Through Director General Sports Authority of India (SAI). .. Respondents

(By Advocate : Ms. Geetanjali Sharma)

ORDER (Oral) Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:

The applicant is working as Deputy Director in the Sports Authority of India. Charge memo dated 27.06.2019 was issued to him, alleging acts of sexual harassment in the workplace. This O.A. is filed challenging the charge memo dated 27.06.2019.

2. The applicant contends that in April 2019, the respondents decided to transfer him from Delhi to Lucknow and to justify the transfer, which is otherwise not legal, certain complaints were fabricated against him. He contends that initially a notice was issued to him about the allegations and though a detailed reply was filed denying the allegations, the impugened charge memorandum was issued. He raised several contentions such as the defect in composition of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), the procedure followed by

the Disciplinary Authority (DA) in passing of the order and denial of opportunity.

3. We heard Shri S. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, at the stage of admission.

4. The charge memo issued on 27.06.2019 was preceded by a preliminary inquiry. The respondents alleged acts of sexual harassment by the applicant against a woman employee.

5. It is not as if the charge memo was issued and soon thereafter the OA is filed. He participated in the disciplinary proceedings and the ICC also submitted its report on 04/15.09.2020. A copy of the report is furnished to the applicant and he is required to submit his reply in the context of imposition of punishment. At this stage, the question of interfering the charge memo does not arise.

6. An objection is raised about the composition of the ICC. It is too vague and in general or otherwise of any particular member suffered disability, the applicant can put forward his contentions through representation. We grant 10 more days' time to the applicant for filing his representation.

7. The O.A. is accordingly dismissed with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman

/pj/jyoti/rk/sd/akshaya11nov/

O.A./1635/2020

R R BHARATI v. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

Respondents' Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

R R BHARATI v. SPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA

Comments