Delhi High Court Recalls Contempt Order, Upholds Right to Personal Hearing Under POSH Act: DG NCC Directed to Reconsider Representation of Lady Officer
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma, passed an order on 24 March 2025 allowing a review petition filed by the respondent in a contempt case. The Court reviewed and recalled its earlier order dated 16 December 2024, which had found Lieutenant General Gurbirpal Singh guilty of contempt. The Bench directed that the petitioner in the original writ petition be granted an opportunity of hearing regarding her appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013.
The petitioner, is a Whole Time Lady Officer (WTLO) appointed through the UPSC in 2006 under the National Cadet Corps (Whole Time Lady Officers Recruitment Rules, 1995). At the time of filing the writ petition W.P.(C) No.2437/2024, she was serving as the Administrative Officer in the rank of Major with 3 Delhi Girl Battalion, NCC.
She had lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against her Commanding Officer during her posting in Patna via the SHE-BOX portal on 7 September 2022. An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) constituted at the Patna Group Headquarters rendered its findings on 23 September 2023, exonerating the officer against whom the complaint was made. The aggrieved lady officer filed a writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Quashing the ICC report dated 23.09.2023 and subsequent departmental proceedings.
(b) Direction to Respondent No.3 (DG, NCC) to decide her representation dated 14.02.2024.
(c) Reconstitution of a fair and impartial ICC preferably in Delhi.
The Single Judge had earlier directed that her representation be treated as an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act. The Appellate Authority under the applicable CCS Rules was to decide the appeal within four weeks.
The petitioner subsequently submitted letters dated 14.02.2024 and 20.02.2024 to the DG, NCC. In her communications, she requested a personal hearing and urged that her appeal be forwarded to the appropriate authority under CCS Rules. On 10.04.2024, the DG, NCC rejected her representation.
Contending that the order had not been complied with, she filed a contempt petition, leading to the order dated 16.12.2024 which held the respondent guilty of contempt and directed that her appeal be forwarded to the Disciplinary Authority.
In the review petition, the respondent contended that the DG, NCC is the Disciplinary Authority in terms of the relevant rules. Reliance was placed on SRO 106 dated 09.06.1994 and a Circular dated 03.07.2024 stating that the DG, NCC had been delegated powers exercisable by the Secretary to the Government of India for summary punishment in certain cases.
The petitioner’s counsel, however, maintained that under the CCS Rules, the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority for a Group-A officer like her is the Ministry of Defence and the President of India, respectively.
The Court observed that an error apparent on the face of the record had crept into its earlier order dated 16.12.2024, in wrongly relying upon the Appendix 'A' of the December 1980 NCC Standing Order and the Office Memorandum dated 02.08.2016.
"It has been rightly urged... that the petitioner herself in the main writ petition inter alia had sought relief (b) that her representation dated 14.02.2024 be considered by the respondent no.3/DG, NCC, and which relief was eventually granted... The plea that the DG, NCC was not the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority, was taken subsequently..."
The Court noted that the petitioner's appointment was governed by a Memorandum dated 26.05.2006 read with SRO 171 dated 12.07.1995 and the terms outlined in Appendix 'A' to a letter dated 12.03.1997. These documents provide that discipline and service liability are governed by the Ministry of Defence rules.
It was recorded that the ICC was constituted at Patna, the location of the incident, and its findings were subsequently forwarded up the chain to the DG, NCC. The Court clarified that the DG, NCC was the appropriate authority for considering her representation, and that the reliance on Appendix 'A' of 1980 and OM dated 02.08.2016 was misplaced.
The Court addressed the issue of personal hearing, recording:
"Although the non-applicant/petitioner demanded a personal hearing, the same was not afforded to her by the DG, NCC... the Appellate Authority may after hearing the complainant... set aside the decision of the ICC and come to a different conclusion..."
The Court cited the Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the 2010 Bill and Supreme Court judgements including Mangilal v. State of M.P. and Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, reiterating that personal hearing is integral to principles of natural justice.
"Section 18 of the POSH Act, 2013 inheres in it a right to opportunity of personal hearing to be afforded to the complainant..."
The Court allowed the review petition and recalled its earlier contempt order dated 16.12.2024. It recorded the respondent's statement that the DG, NCC would provide a personal hearing to the petitioner.
The Court ordered:
"The contempt petition is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction that the non-applicant/petitioner be afforded an opportunity of hearing based on her representation dated 14.02.2024... She shall also be at liberty to submit an additional representation within 2 weeks from today and thereafter, she be afforded an opportunity of hearing and the matter be decided in accordance with law."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the petitioner: Mr. Ankur Chibber and Mr. Anshuman Mehrotra
For the respondent: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhradeep Saha and Mr. Prabhat Kumar
Case Title: XXX v. Lieutenant General Gurbirpal Singh
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1894
Case Number: CONT.CAS(C) 1472/2024
Bench: Justice Dharmesh Sharma
[Read/Download order]
