MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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