Judgment N. Paul Vasantha Kumar, J. 1. Heard Mr. L. Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Su. Srinivasan, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondents 1 and 2. 2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order made in O.A.No.447 of 2014 on the file of the 4th respondent-Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 18.09.2014 wherein, the petitioner has challenged the charge memo of the first respondent dated 17.05.2013 and the report of the third respondent dated 26.02.2014 and sought to quash the same. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that the petitioner is working as Technician in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam. His wife viz., Smt. Sushma Alaguvadivel is also employed as a Technician in the Propulsion Reactor Plant Division, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam. One Subhrangsu Kumar, SO/H and Chief Superintendent, I.C.No.122 PRPD in Electronics Laboratory, who is a higher officer of the Propulsion Reactor Plant Division gave sexual harassment to the petitioner’s wife continuously and on 04.01.2013, when she was working in the computer, he had given sexual harassment and gave mental agony, which resulted in giving a complaint to the police as well as the Department. The petitioner, being the husband of the said lady Technician, asked about the incidents on 07.01.2013. The said Kumar also expressed sorry and assured him that such incidents will not happen again. However, there was some wordy quarrel and the petitioner allegedly pushed the said Kumar. The said Kumar gave a statement on 07.01.2013 to the Department, pursuant to which, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on May 17, 2013, which reads as follows: “Shri T. Alaguvadivel (IC.No.607) Technician “D”, PRPD, physically assaulted and pushed down Shri S. Kumar, SO/H & Chief Superintendent, IC No.122, PRPD in Electronics Laboratory, PRPD on 07.01.2013 at about 12.00 hrs. The said Act of Shri Alaguvadivel amounts to riotous, an act subversive of discipline. By his aforesaid conduct the said Shri Alaguvadivel has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby contravening the provisions of clause (iii) of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 3 of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 4. The said Act of Shri Alaguvadivel amounts to riotous, an act subversive of discipline. By his aforesaid conduct the said Shri Alaguvadivel has acted in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant and thereby contravening the provisions of clause (iii) of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 3 of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.” 4. On the complaint given against the said S. Kumar, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.06/2013 under Sections 509, 506(i) IPC along with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassament of Women (Amendment Act) 2002 and Section 4 of (Amendment Act) 2002 and Sections 3(i) (xi)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mamallapuram, Kacheepuram District and charge sheet was filed and the same is now pending before District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukkazhukundram. A Women’s Cell Committee was also constituted to look into the sexual harassment stated against the said Kumar which also gave a finding against the said Kumar on 22.01.2013. The said Kumar surrendered before the Principal Sessions Court, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu on 08.04.2013 and as per the order in Crl.M.P.No.1264 of 2013 dated 08.04.2013, he was released on bail with conditions which was relaxed subsequently by order dated 22.05.2013. 5. The Women’s Cell Committee submitted its report on 22.01.2013, which was sent to the competent authority for perusal. After the receipt of the enquiry committee report, the said Kumar was placed under suspension on 22.01.2013 and his subsistence allowance was also paid. Subsequent to the second review of subsistence allowance, the suspension of Kumar was revoked by the Competent Authority by order dated 19.07.2013 and he was transferred to BARC, Mumbai with effect from 23.07.2013. However, the competent authority, where he is serving as on date, decided not to act on the enquiry report dated 22.01.2013 submitted by Women’s Cell as Women’s Cell did not have a third party, viz., NGO or other body conversant with the issue of sexual harassment and had not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 in conducting its inquiry and therefore another Standing Complaints Committee was constituted to conduct de novo enquiry to look into the allegation afresh. The Standing Complaints Committee conducted the preliminary investigation on 10.12.2013 and a charge sheet was served by the Committee to Kumar on 06.02.2014, for which he furnished his statement of defence on 14.02.2014 and the said proceedings were stayed by this Court at the instance of the petitioner’s wife viz., Sushma Alaguvadivel in W.P.No.6995 of 2014. 6. While the facts stood thus, enquiry was conducted against the petitioner regarding the charge as stated supra and in the enquiry, the said Kumar, who was the alleged victim has not chosen to appear and depose any evidence against the petitioner and in the enquiry, which was held on 19.11.2013, witnesses were examined and the witnesses clearly deposed that the said Kumar was asked to say sorry to the petitioner’s wife viz., Sushma Alaguvadivel. Inspite of the said deposition given, the enquiry officer submitted his report and at that stage, the petitioner has filed O.A., before the Central Administrative Tribunal to quash the charge memo as well as the enquiry report, which is dated 26.02.2014. The said Original Application was dismissed by the Tribunal, against which, this Writ Petition is filed. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the aggressor viz, S. Kumar, was allowed to continue in service and he was safely transferred to Mumbai and the petitioner alone is targeted, who being husband of the victim i.e., the woman employee, who reacted as a normal man, to protect the modesty of his wife, who was sexually harassed by the said Kumar. He further argued that the said action of the Department in issuing the charge memo and conducting enquiry against the petitioner shows the biased attitude of the Department and there is no material to proceed against the petitioner as there was no injury to the said Kumar on the alleged physical assault and he has also not chosen to give any police complaint regarding the said incident, which said to have taken place on 07.01.2013 at 12.00 hours. The learned counsel further submitted that the said Kumar is allowed to continue by giving transfer to safer place though criminal case regarding the sexual harassment and other offences are pending even today. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the said Kumar is allowed to continue by giving transfer to safer place though criminal case regarding the sexual harassment and other offences are pending even today. 8. In answer to the said submission, the learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for respondents 1 and 2 relied on the counter affidavit filed and submitted that even assuming that the said Kumar sexually harassed the petitioner’s wife, the petitioner would not have indulged in wordy quarrel or assaulted the said Kumar, instead he should have given a complaint to the Police and as such, taking the law in his own hand, particularly, when he is serving in the Atomic Energy Department cannot be permitted; therefore, the charge memo issued and the enquiry conducted are just and proper. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the particular charge as well as the enquiry report and other material documents. 10. There is prima facie material against the allegation regarding the sexual harassment made against the petitioner’s wife viz., Sushma Alaguvadivel by the said Kumar. The petitioner’s wife gave a statement on 07.01.2013 before the Department, which reads as follows: “I humbly inform you that I am working as Tech-C in PRPD, a branch of BARCF. My higher official Shri. S. Kumar, SO/H is behaving with me for quite some time by talking indecently and trying to physically molest me by coming to my work place. I have many times told him and warned him not to behave like that and give me trouble. He will behave properly for some time and then, he will do the same thing again. Because of the mental tension, I informed my husband, who is working as Tech-D in PRPD about his behaviour. When he first enquired Shri S.Kumar, SO/H whether he behaved like that, Shri Kumar, SO/H has told sorry and assured him that that will not happen again. My husband, tensed with this misbehaviour with his wife i.e., me, beat Shri S.Kumar, SO/H at around 12.00 hours on 07.01.2013 in the Electronics Lab of PRPD.” 11. The petitioner also gave a statement on 07.01.2013, which reads as follows:- “I Alaguvadivel, am woking in PRPD/BARCF. My wife, smt. Sushma, is working as Tech-C, C&I Section, PRPD. For the last two years, Sri S Kumar, Chief Superintendent is harassing my wife by using unparliamentary words. The petitioner also gave a statement on 07.01.2013, which reads as follows:- “I Alaguvadivel, am woking in PRPD/BARCF. My wife, smt. Sushma, is working as Tech-C, C&I Section, PRPD. For the last two years, Sri S Kumar, Chief Superintendent is harassing my wife by using unparliamentary words. Because of this, my wife is totally upset and as a result on 05.01.2013 she told me. What she told me is that Sri S Kumar is talking to me unnecessarily and I have warned him many times, but he has not stopped that and he has taken my warnings lightly. After hearing this from my wife, I was totally upset. I told my wife that we can complaint against this to Women’s Cell. She agreed for that. Under such circumstances, morning at around 0940 hrs I was in PRP. She was carrying out her work seriously. At around 1200 hrs, in lunch time, I went to the lab. I saw Mr. Kumar there. When I enquired to Kumar about the incident, he said that it was a mistake to speak like that and said sorry for that. After hearing this I got angry and I pushed him down. At that time, Sri Ramakrishnan, SO/E (Chemistry Lab) came there after hearing the sound. In front of him, Sri Kumar accepted the mistake and asked sorry to my wife. Also he told not to make issue out of this. For this, I told that he should not do like this because he is in a responsible position. Again with folded hands, he said sorry to my wife.” 12. The said Kumar also gave a statement on 07.01.2013, which reads as follows:- “On 7th January, I reached in electronics laboratory at Bldg.3, PRP at around 11:45 hours. I have talked to Jithin G. Nair in the laboratory and also talked to Sushma Alagubadivel regarding their work. Sushma was doing maintenance of Power supply. After that when I was coming out of laboratory, Sri Alagubadivel (Susma’s husband) came to laboratory and told me that he wants to talk to me. He alleged that I have misbehaved with his wife (Susma Alagubadivel). I completely disagree with this allegation. After some hot exchange of word, he pushed me. I did not want to aggravate the situation further. He alleged that I have misbehaved with his wife (Susma Alagubadivel). I completely disagree with this allegation. After some hot exchange of word, he pushed me. I did not want to aggravate the situation further. For that reason, although I have not done anything wrong, I tried to explain that, “even any of my behaviors hurt/insult you, I am sorry” Immediately he pushed me and I fell down. He has physically assaulted me. This has hurt me very much and I am mentally disturbed. After the incident, I have analyzed the reason. Problem may be, She is not getting good grading in her APAR. She also have no interest to improve her technical capability and not contributing in his work output and her grading are not upto the mark. This might have generated anger against me and they are making false allegation against me. Head, PRPD may take note of this and take necessary action.” 13. From the above narrated statements and the criminal proceedings, it is evident that there is prima facie material available regarding the sexual harassment made by the said Kumar towards the petitioner’s wife and he has also expressed his regret for such incident. In such circumstances, the reaction of the petitioner, who is none other than the husband of the victim lady, shown towards the said aggressor viz., the said Kumar is natural and not excessive. Further, the said Kumar has not sustained any injury, even according to the charge/version of the department. The said Kumar also has not reported to the CISF for taking action against the petitioner. 14. Considering the above circumstances viz., the sexual harassment meted out to the petitioner’s wife by the said S. Kumar for which the petitioner has reacted in a mild manner, without causing any injury, we are of the view that the same could not be a subject matter of any disciplinary proceedings and particularly, when Kumar has not chosen to appear before the Enquiry Officer to prove such charge. In such a view of the matter, without expressing any final finding on the allegations regarding the sexual harassment allegedly made by Kumar, which is subject matter of enquiry by the Standing Complaints Committee with the issue of sexual harassment as well before the criminal court, we are of the view that initiation of the Departmental proceedings against the petitioner and issuance of charge memo referred to above and the consequential proceedings cannot be allowed to stand. 15. Hence, we are inclined to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the said incident took place on 07.01.2013 and the consequential proceedings, which was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed. Petition allowed.