Kerala High Court Denies Relief To Petitioner Suppressing Facts, Orders Enquiry Into Allotment Of Govt Scheme Houses On Puramboke Land Candidate Missing Physical Test For Minor Illness Has No Enforceable Right To Rescheduling: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration And Parity Constitute Valid Grounds For Regular Bail: Supreme Court Accused In Cheque Bounce Cases Cannot File Evidence-In-Chief By Affidavit Under Section 145 NI Act: Orissa High Court Borrowers Have No Right To Personal Hearing Before Fraud Classification, But Full Forensic Audit Report Must Be Supplied: Supreme Court Pendency Of Matrimonial Dispute With General Allegations Not A Valid Ground To Deny Public Employment: Allahabad High Court Minimum Five Persons Mandatory To Prove 'Preparation For Dacoity' Under Section 399 IPC: Gujarat High Court Suit For Specific Performance Not Maintainable Without Prayer To Set Aside Termination Of Agreement: Madras High Court Trial Court Must Indicate Material Forming Basis Of Charge, Mechanical Framing Of Charges Impermissible: Madhya Pradesh High Court Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted If Positive Order Of Refusal Is Not Communicated Within Notice Period: Supreme Court Court Cannot Convict One Accused And Acquit Another On Same Evidence: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Due To Unreliable Last-Seen Evidence And Principle Of Parity 138 NI Act | Accused Cannot Rebut Presumption Of Legally Enforceable Debt At Pre-Trial Stage In Cheque Bounce Cases: Supreme Court More Meritorious PWD Candidates From Reserved Categories Can Claim Unreserved PWD Posts In Open Competition: Supreme Court Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court Employee Not Entitled To Gratuity Until Conclusion Of Both Departmental And Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Stamp Duty Recovery Against Legal Heirs Is Strictly Limited To The Extent Of Inherited Estate: Allahabad High Court Single Lathi Blow On Head During Sudden Altercation Amounts To Culpable Homicide Under Section 304 Part II IPC, Not Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Habeas Corpus Maintainable For Child Custody Against Father; Cannot Be Dismissed Merely Due To Alternate Remedy: Allahabad High Court "Plea Of Ignorance In Digital Era Inexcusable": Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes Rs 10K Cost On Accused For Hiding Prior Bail Dismissal Discrepancies In Name And Age On Monthly Pass Fail To Establish 'Bona Fide Passenger' Status In Railway Accident Claim: Delhi High Court "Last Seen" Theory A Weak Link If Time Gap Is Wide: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Sentenced To Life For Murder Failure To Conduct Pre-Anaesthetic Check-Up Prima Facie Amounts To Gross Medical Negligence Under Section 304A IPC: Kerala High Court Gujarat High Court Bans AI From Judicial Decision-Making, Lays Down Strict Policy for Court Use of Artificial Intelligence

Supreme Court Quashes Termination Order in Sexual Harassment Case, Directs Fresh Inquiry

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a termination order and directed a fresh inquiry in a sexual harassment case. The court held that the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the employer's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) were marred by procedural lapses and violations of natural justice. The judgment highlights the importance of following due process and ensuring fairness in inquiries related to sexual harassment at the workplace.

Sexual harassment, Workplace, Disciplinary proceedings, Internal Complaints Committee, Due process, Natural justice.

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has set aside a termination order issued against an employee in a sexual harassment case and ordered a fresh inquiry. The court found serious procedural lapses and violations of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the employer's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).

The case pertained to allegations of sexual harassment made by seventeen students against the appellant, who was an employee of the institution. The ICC, after receiving the complaints, conducted an inquiry described as "fact-finding" in nature. The committee accepted the report of the first committee and placed the appellant under suspension. However, it subsequently issued a memorandum detailing the articles of charge and appointed a former judge of the High Court as an inquiry officer.

The Supreme Court observed that the ICC and the executive council (EC) of the institution had misunderstood the role of the first committee, considering it to be merely a fact-finding committee. The court emphasized that the Complaints Committee established under the Vishaka guidelines should be deemed as an Inquiry Authority for the purpose of conducting the inquiry as per the relevant rules.

The court further noted that the inquiry proceedings conducted by the committee from May 2009 were marred by glaring defects and procedural lapses. The appellant was given limited time to prepare his defense, and the committee conducted multiple hearings at a fast pace. The court held that these actions compromised the fairness of the process and violated the principles of natural justice.

Consequently, the court set aside the termination order and directed a fresh inquiry. The Complaints Committee was instructed to take up the inquiry proceedings as they stood on May 5, 2009, and provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. The court directed the committee to complete the entire process within three months from the first date of hearing and ensure adherence to the principles of natural justice.

In the epilogue of the judgment, the court expressed concern over the lapses in the enforcement of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act. It emphasized the need for properly constituted Internal Complaints Committees and called for proactive measures to educate complainants about the redressal process. The court issued various directions to the Union and State governments, statutory bodies, and judicial academies to ensure compliance with the Act and promote awareness.

Date of Decision: May 12, 2023

AURELIANO FERNANDES  vs STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS

Latest Legal News