M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment dated 20.10.2010 rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that dismissal of the Petitioner vide order dated 8.7.2010 (A.1) on the basis of an inquiry where he was found guilty of having caused sexual harassment to a lady official did not suffer from any legal infirmity. The argument of the Petitioner that on the basis of the inquiry report (A.2) he was transferred and the matter should have ended there because imposition of penalty of dismissal from service is double jeopardy. It is appropriate to mention that after recording a detailed evidence, the Circle Committee for the Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the work place, has recorded the following findings: Finally, the Committee is of the view that charges of sexual harassment against Shri D.K. Gandhi have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The over -whelming number of witnesses cannot be ignored. The only person who refused to testify was the Deputy Post Master Smt. Laxmi Sehajpal. Besides her, the ladies showed great courage in speaking openly about the harassment faced by them. The Committee recommends Shri Gandhi's immediate transfer out of the unit concerned. He may be shifted out of the city or even out of the division, as the competent authority deems fit. It is also suggested that his next supervisory officer may be asked confidentially to keep a watch on his behavior with lady staff. This concludes the proceedings of the inquiry into charges of sexual harassment against Shri D.K. Gandhi, PRI/ Manager, Speed Post Centre, Jalandhar City HO.
(2.) A perusal of the aforesaid report shows that the charges of sexual harassment against the Petitioner were proved beyond reasonable doubt. It was on the basis of the inquiry report that the Petitioner was dismissed from service as is evident from the perusal of order dated 8.7.2010 (A.1) and the appellate order dated 27.9.2010 (A/1/A). The appellate authority has found that the Petitioner had indulged into the act of mis -conduct which have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and he had accepted the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority as exemplary to act as deterrent to prevent such instances at work place. Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the considered view that there is nothing on the record which may suggest that right of the Petitioner has in any way been adversely effected during the inquiry or that the principles of natural justice have been violated. Once there is no procedural lapse, it is not possible to accept that there was double jeopardy or that the punishment is excessive. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.;