Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

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