Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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