Inquiry Committee

Petitioner / complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Federal Ombudsman setting aside order passed by authorities on the recommendations of Inquiry Committee, on the ground that members of the Committee were lower in rank to respondent / accused

Validity

Members of Inquiry Committee under S.3(2) of Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, were not required to be senior to the person against whom the Committee was to conduct an inquiry

Ombudsman committed a jurisdictional error and a patent illegality by setting-aside decision of the authorities on the ground that all members of the Committee were not senior to respondent / accused

Inquiry was to be conducted by the forum before which complainant had opted to prefer a complaint

Ombudsman, under S.8(3) of Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, had jurisdiction to conduct inquiry into the matter and conduct proceedings as he could deem proper but such was only where an employee had opted to file complaint before Ombudsman under S.8(1) of Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010

Ombudsman committed a patent error of law and committed a jurisdictional error by setting aside decision of authorities on the sole ground that two of the three members of the Committee that conducted inquiry against respondent/accused were junior to him

High Court set aside order passed by Ombudsman to conduct a fresh inquiry against respondent/accused as the same was without jurisdiction and remanded the matter to Ombudsman for decision afresh

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Section 4(2) of the Protection against Harassment of women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ('the Act') emphasised that the Inquiry Committee shall have ample powers to regulate its own procedure for conducting inquiry proceedings to achieve the subject task, including the fixing of place and time for its sitting

No prescribed procedure or mechanism had been provided in the Act for conducting the proceedings of the complaint

Inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Committee or appeal filed before the Ombudsman under the Act were quasi-judicial in nature, thus procedure and provisions prescribed under the general laws could not be strictly applied thereupon, however, maintenance of transparency and impartiality in order to ensure dispensation of justice was essential

Procedure adopted by the Inquiry Committee could not be challenged and objected to by either party as a matter of routine or with sole object to frustrate the very purpose of inquiry proceedings or apprehending any adverse conclusion, if said party had been heard properly and was afforded opportunity to explain its position and produce relevant material in accordance with law.

Firstly the recommendations of Inquiry Committee must be given due weight, secondly recommendations of Inquiry Committee are not binding on competent Authority and thirdly where competent Authority decides to disagree with the recommendations of Inquiry Committee, it must do so for valid recorded reasons and cannot act arbitrarily and capriciously.