Stamp Act | Agreements to Sell with Possession Clauses Are Conveyances and Must Be Stamped Separately: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Electronic Road Safety Monitoring Under Motor Vehicles Act    |     False Claims Shake Court's Trust in Legal Proceedings: Supreme Court Dismisses Petition for Premature Release After False Statements on Imprisonment Duration    |     Executive Instructions Cannot Supplant Statutory Notifications: Bombay High Court Holds on Environmental Clearances    |     Illegal Mining Is Not a Scheduled Offence Under PMLA: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Arrest of MLA Surender Panwar    |     Customers Liable Under Section 370(A) IPC if They Knew Victims Were Trafficked: Telangana High Court    |     Literal Interpretation of Taxing Statute Cannot Frustrate The Legislative Intent To Promote Infrastructure Development: Calcutta High Court    |     Medical Evidence Reveals One Child Died 13 Hours After Accused’s Rescue: Kerala High Court Acquits Mother Convicted of Killing Her Children    |     Non-compliance with interim maintenance order cannot bar divorce proceedings: Orissa High Court    |     DNA Evidence Cannot Be the Sole Basis for Conviction Without Proper Chain of Custody: Bombay High Court Quashes Conviction in POCSO and Rape Case    |     Force Majeure Cannot Be Invoked Without Timely Notice: Madras High Court    |     Non-payment of Compensation for Over Four Decades Shocks Judicial Conscience: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Compensation Recalculation for 42-Year    |     Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Retirement Age of 60 for Cement Workers, Grants Full Back Wages to Wrongfully Retired Workmen    |     Supreme Court Grants Bail to Tamil Nadu Ex-Minister V. Senthil Balaji in Corruption and Money Laundering Case    |     Courts Can Award Maintenance More Than Claimed Based on Income: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Maintenance    |     Mere Possession of Child Pornography with Intent Can Trigger POCSO Offences, Even Without Transmission: Supreme Court    |     Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers    |     Taxation Law | Issuing Notices to a Dead Person is a Fundamental Jurisdictional Error: Delhi HC Sets Aside Reassessment Proceedings    |     Common Intention Can Be Inferred from the Conduct of the Accused Moments Before the Act: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Grants Divorce by Mutual Consent, Quashes All Pending Cases in Matrimonial Dispute    |    

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                                     

Similar News