| Headnote |
Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre andServices) Rules, 1975 – r.135 – Constitutionality of – Held: r.135 isvalid and does not suffer from the vice of unconstitutionality.Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre andServices) Rules, 1975 – r.135 – Appellant was posted in Research& Analysis Wing (R&AW) as Director at Headquarters, New Delhi– Complained of sexual harassment against two officers workingas Secretary (R) and Joint Secretary at that time – She reportedlyattempted to commit suicide – Her identity and association withR&AW became a subject of public discourse – She was declaredunemployable due to exposure as an intelligence officer – Order ofcompulsory retirement passed u/r.135 – Appellant’s challenge upheldby Tribunal, reinstatement directed – Decision reversed by HighCourt – On appeal, held: Impugned order of compulsory retirementagainst the appellant is valid and legal – Grant of pension to theappellant to be computed in accordance with the date of notionalsuperannuation as directed by High Court and not from the date ofactual compulsory retirement – Compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- bepaid to the appellant for violation of her fundamental rights to lifeand dignity as a result of improper handling of her complaint ofsexual harassment – Constitution of India – Arts.13, 14, 21, 309-311 – Doctrine of pleasure; Doctrine of necessity – Principles ofnatural justice –Central Civil Services (Classification, Control andAppeal) Rules, 1965 – The Sexual Harassment of Women atWorkplace Act, 2013 – Service Law.Constitution of India – Art.311 – Operation of – Discussed.Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre andServices) Rules, 1975 – r.135(2) – Held: “may” occurring in sub-Rule (2) of r.135 be read as “shall” – Interpretation of Statutes.Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre andServices) Rules, 1975 – r.135 – Compulsory retirement under –Safeguards of Art.311, if attracted – Held: Compulsory retirementwithout anything more does not attract Art.311(2) – Action u/r.135is not governed by Art.311 nor it offends the same – Thus, an actiontaken u/r.135 need not be preceded by the safeguards providedu/Art.311 as such – Principles of natural justice – Constitution ofIndia – Art.311.Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre andServices) Rules, 1975 – r.135 – Compulsory retirement under, ifsame as dismissal/removal – Held: Effect of any action takenu/r.135 does not entail any penal consequence for the employee –Therefore, it cannot be put at the same pedestal as an action ofdismissal or removal – Service Law.Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre andServices) Rules, 1975 – r.135 – Action of compulsory retirement, ifviolates Art.14 – Held: No – Constitution of India – Art.14.Service Law – Deputationist and a direct recruit – Differencebetween – Discussed – Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment,Cadre and Services) Rules, 1975 – r.135.Research and Analysis Wing (Recruitment, Cadre andServices) Rules, 1975 – r.135 – Challenge in reference to Art.309 –Held: Rules framed u/Art.309 governing conditions of service aresubject to other provisions of the Constitution including Art.311 –However, this subjection clause shall not operate upon the rulesgoverning compulsory retirement – Constitution of India – Arts.309,311.Constitution of India – Art.309, 311 – Scope of – Discussed.Interpretation of Statutes – “security” used in r.135 asdistinguished from “security of the State” used in Art.311 – Purportof – Discussed – Constitution of India – Art. 311.Fundamental Rule 56(j)– Distinction between FR.56(j) andr.135, 1975 Rules – Discussed – Research and Analysis Wing(Recruitment, Cadre and Services) Rules, 1975. |
