At the Stage of Framing Charge, Presumption Suffices; Suicide Note and Grave Suspicion Enough: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Charge Under Section 306 IPC 173 CrPC | Framing of Charge Marks End of Investigation—Complainant Cannot Reopen Probe Merely by Citing Police Lapses: Bombay High Court Recovery Alone Cannot Prove Guilt: Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Murder Case Photos, Videos Must Go: Supreme Court Binds Warring Spouses to Clean Up Social Media in Matrimonial Settlement Standard for Bail Under Section 319 CrPC Is Higher Than Framing of Charge, But Short of Conviction: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Accused Summoned Mid-Trial State Cannot Arbitrarily Deny Subsidies to 'New Industrial Units' by Retrospectively Applying Expansion Caps: Supreme Court Companies Act | Offence Under Section 448 Is Covered Under Section 447: Supreme Court Bars Private Complaint Without SFIO Nod “See-To-It” Obligation Is Not A Guarantee Under Indian Law: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Section 126 ICA In IBC Disputes Mere Employment of Litigant’s Relatives in Police or Court Doesn't Prove Judicial Bias: Supreme Court Sets Aside Transfer of Criminal Case Reserved Candidate Availing Relaxed Standards in Prelims Cannot Migrate to General Quota for Cadre Allocation: Supreme Court Mere Vesting Does Not Mean Possession: Supreme Court Rules ULC Proceedings Abated For Failure To Serve Mandatory Notice To Actual Occupants Contempt of Courts Act | Natural Justice in Administrative Action: Supreme Court Directs West Bengal Govt to Re-Adjudicate Teachers' Arrears Claims Live-In Relationship with Married Man Not a ‘Relationship in the Nature of Marriage’ Under Domestic Violence Act: Bombay High Court Applies Supreme Court Guidelines Income Tax Act | Substitution of Shares held as Stock-in-Trade upon Amalgamation constitutes Taxable Business Income if Commercially Realisable: Supreme Court Judges Cannot Enact Their Own Protocols During Bail Hearings: Supreme Court Sets Aside Sweeping Age Determination Directions In POCSO If There Is Knowledge That Injury Is Likely To Cause Death, But No Intention Falls Under Section 304 Part II:  Supreme Court High Court Ignored POCSO’s Statutory Rigour, Committed Grave Error in Granting Bail: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Gang-Rape Accused Section 22 HSA | Co-Heirs Have Statutory Right of Pre-Emption Even in Urban Property: Punjab & Haryana High Court 138 NI Act | Issuance of Separate Cheques Gives Rise to Independent Causes of Action, Even if Drawn for Same Underlying Transaction: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Disciplinary Action in Sexual Harassment Case, Affirms Validity of Multiple Inquiries Under Vishaka Guidelines

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court restored the disciplinary action against a government servant, Dilip Paul, accused of sexual harassment. The apex court set aside the earlier judgment of the High Court, thereby reinforcing the principles governing disciplinary proceedings in cases of workplace harassment.

Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra upheld the findings of the Central Complaints Committee, which found the respondent guilty of the charges. The respondent, an Area Organizer at the Service Selection Board in Rangia, Assam, was accused of sexual harassment by a female colleague.

The Court's decision emphasized the importance of thorough and fair investigations in such sensitive matters. Justice Chandrachud observed, "Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence."

This judgment highlights the applicability and interpretation of the Vishaka guidelines in government service. The Court scrutinized the procedural aspects of the inquiries conducted by both the Frontier and Central Complaints Committees. It was noted that initial inquiries had failed to fully substantiate the allegations against the respondent. However, the subsequent inquiry by the Central Complaints Committee established the charges, leading to the appropriate disciplinary action.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of conducting multiple inquiries. It was noted that the initial on-spot inquiry was only preliminary in nature and could not be equated with a comprehensive disciplinary inquiry. The formation of the Central Complaints Committee was thus justified for a more thorough investigation, adhering to the principles laid down in the Vishaka guidelines.

The ruling serves as a reaffirmation of the judicial system's commitment to ensuring a harassment-free workplace while upholding the principles of justice and fair play in disciplinary proceedings. This decision sets a precedent for how allegations of sexual harassment, especially in government sectors, should be meticulously and sensitively handled, respecting the rights of all parties involved.

Date of Decision: 06 November 2023

Union of India and Others VS Dilip Paul                                     

Latest Legal News