HC allows proceedings against senior aviation officer in sexual harassment case
The DGCA had approached the high court, challenging the CAT order, stating that the allegations of sexual harassment were levelled by a contactual staff of the organisation against the officer when he was posted in Bengaluru, and the matter was referred to the ICC.
Additional solicitor general Anil Singh informed the court that after a preliminary inquiry conducted by the ICC, as contemplated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act), based on the preliminary report of the ICC, charges were framed by the disciplinary authority and the same was served on the officer concerned.
The officer had challenged the issuance of chargesheet before the Mumbai bench of CAT, claiming that the proceeding was based on completely false allegations levelled after the contractual employee realised that her services were about to be terminated.
The Tribunal on August 2, 2024, struck down the chargesheet, observing that in a number of judgements, the Supreme Court has held that the ICC should frame the charges and serve the chargesheet on the delinquent officer.
The Tribunal held that the chargesheet was liable to be struck down, as it was prepared and served by the Disciplinary Authority of the DGCA, and not by the ICC. The Tribunal also allowed the officers' plea for promotion, observing that under the law laid down by the apex court, due promotion can be denied to a government employee only when a chargesheet is served on him, or he is under suspension, or criminal prosecution is initiated against him.
The Tribunal said since none of the eventualities existed, after striking down the chargesheet against the officer concerned, due promotion could not have been denied to him, and ordered the DGCA to grant him promotion to the post of deputy DGCA, if he was entitled to it.
A division bench of justice MS Karnik and justice NR Borkar, however, stayed the CAT order. 'We find that the charges levelled against respondent No 1 (Soni) are serious,' the bench said, while staying the CAT order. 'We do not find any prejudice to respondent No 1 as a consequence of Disciplinary Authority framing and issuing the chargesheet. In any case, respondent No 1 will get full opportunity to defend himself during the course of the inquiry and examination of the witnesses,' the judges added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
14 years after Paramakudi riots, CBI refuses to disclose status of investigation under RTI Act
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has declined to share details of its probe into the 2011 Paramakudi riots under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Fourteen years after seven persons belonging to the Scheduled Caste were killed and many others injured in police firing and the violence that followed on September 11, 2011, at Paramakudi in Ramanathapuram district the CBI's Special Crimes Branch in Chennai invoked exemption provisions of the Act to reject queries about the status of the case. The RTI Act petition was filed by C. Selvakumar, who sought copies of the FIR, names of investigating officers, details of accused persons, and information on whether any interim or final report had been filed in the case. In his response, the Chief Public Information Officer said: 'In view of the provisions under Section 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h) and Section 24 of the RTI Act, the requisite information cannot be provided to you and accordingly your application is rejected.' Mr Selvakumar's first appeal alleging the response was incomplete, false and misleading was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority, which upheld the CPIO's decision. He then approached the Central Information Commission (CIC). After hearing both parties, Information Commissioner Anandi Ramalingam ruled that the CBI was exempted from disclosure under Section 25 of the RTI Act. While closing the appeal, she directed the agency not to cite Section 8(1)(h) and Section 24 together to deny information. Enquiry commission's findings A one-man commission of inquiry headed by Justice Sampath had earlier concluded that the police opened fire in 'self-defence.' The report praised the officers for the 'admirable way' in which they handled the tense situation but criticised the conduct of some personnel after the riots, calling it 'disgraceful' and contrary to police standing orders, citing instances of rioters being beaten up. However, the State government rejected what it described as the commission's 'disparaging remarks' against the police. The firing occurred when large numbers of members of the Scheduled Caste assembled in Paramakudi to pay homage to their leader Immanuel Sekaran on his 54th death anniversary. Violence broke out after the arrest of Tamizhaga Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) leader John Pandian, whose supporters demanded his release. The protest escalated, leading to riots, arson, injuries to policemen, and the subsequent firing. Prosecution sanction withheld Police sources said the CBI, which took over the probe on the orders of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, had sought the State government's sanction to prosecute certain officers. The then AIADMK government denied the request. As a result, the case has not yet been chargesheeted. It was not clear whether a departmental inquiry or disciplinary action was insisted any official for the high-handedness, some of which was captured on camera, in the riots, the sources said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Ambergris — banned whale vomit — worth Rs 2.98 crore seized in Rural Ahmedabad, two arrested
The Special Operations Group (SOG) of the Ahmedabad Rural Police on Sunday arrested two men with 2.976 kg of illicit sperm whale vomit (ambergris), police said. Based on a tip-off, the Ahmedabad Rural SOG conducted a raid near the Sarkhej-Sanand Highway, close to Gibpura village that falls under Sanand police station. During the operation, two suspects who were allegedly in possession of ambergris were apprehended. The seized quantity of ambergris weighed 2.976 kg, with an estimated international value of Rs 2.98 crore. 'Two mobile phones worth Rs 2,000 and Rs 700 in cash were also seized,' said Superintendent of Police, Ahmedabad Rural, Om Prakash Jat. The arrested persons include Yogesh Tulsi Makwana (30) from Bhavnagar and Pantukumaar Bharatbhai Patel (37), a resident of Sabarmati, Ahmedabad. 'During questioning, the arrested accused revealed that the ambergris was provided to them by one Bharat Vallabh Sarvaiya, a resident of Bhavnagar, and that they were searching for potential buyers due to its high-market value. The seized ambergris has been verified by the Range Forest Officer and FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) experts, and the accused have been handed over to the Forest Department, Sanand, for legal action under the Wildlife (Protection) Act,' said the Ahmedabad Rural Police. Trade of ambergris is banned in India as the sperm whale is a schedule 1 species under Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). With this latest seizure, a total of 7.88 kg of ambergris has been seized in three cases in Ahmedabad district in the last three-and-a-half months. The previous two seizures were made by the Crime Branch of Ahmedabad City Police with 2 kg of ambergris seized on August 6, and 2.904 kg confiscated on April 30. Ambergris, which means gray amber in French, is a waxy substance that originates from the digestive system of the protected sperm whales. Traditionally, it is used to produce perfumes that have notes of musk.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Banned but blooming: Bengaluru's endless flex problem
Religious sentiments, political rivalry, and weak laws continue to flood Bengaluru with flexes and banners despite a blanket ban, according to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and police. In the past 16 months - in the fiscal year 2024-25 and till date - police have filed 461 FIRs against illegal advertisements, while BBMP has removed 27,207 flexes and collected ₹4.08 lakh in fine, data reviewed by The Hindu shows. The Mahadevapura Zone tops the list with 113 FIRs under the Karnataka Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1981, followed by the West Zone with 91, Yelahanka with 69, and the South Zone with 56. The Karnataka High Court imposed a blanket ban on flexes in 2018. Since then, BBMP has been clearing them and booking offenders. Still, banners pop up during religious events and political occasions. 'Supporters of politicians often put these banners up overnight for birthdays or small events. When questioned, they ask us to first remove the banners of rival politicians,' a BBMP official said. Officials admit the issue is more about competition than necessity. If one politician puts up 100 banners, rivals ensure 101 go up the next day. Such contests are common in the East and West Zones, he said. Religious programmes are another occasion when the streets are dotted with flex and banners. BBMP receives numerous requests every month for flex permissions. 'We allow them out of respect for religious sentiments, warning organisers to remove them within hours of the event. But most don't comply, and our staff clear them later,' said another officer. With limited manpower, BBMP struggles to match the pace at which banners appear overnight. Last year, BBMP floated tenders twice to outsource flex removal, but no contractor applied. Officials attribute this to fear of politicians. The civic body is now banking on a project of affixing AI-equipped cameras on official vehicles to track banners in real time. BBMP points out that politicians are justifying some banners as essential for awareness. For instance, the southern and southeastern parts of the city are dotted with banners about the e-khata drive, tied to poles and trees. The banners remain in place long after the event is over, and even though they technically qualify as advertisements, they are presented as 'development awareness' flexes. Police said the weak law makes enforcement toothless. The law prescribes a fine of less than ₹2,000 and up to six months' imprisonment, but offenders easily secure bail. 'If someone installs 20 or 30 banners, the fine is the same as for one banner,' said Deputy Commissioner of Police Akshay Hakay Machindra. 'Since the banner itself costs more than the fine, they put up more without hesitation,' he said, adding that police often join hands with BBMP to clear banners and sometimes take suo motu cases. 'But they keep coming back,' he said. Amid these concerns, officials are pinning hopes on a writ petition regarding advertisements, currently in the High Court. 'If the court pulls up politicians and orders strict action, the city may finally see fewer illegal banners,' a senior police officer said.
