Dismissal in sexual harassment case upheld

“The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of the facts,” the Bench said.

“The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the HighCourt.”

“Since the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion with regard to the guilt of the delinquent for that of the departmental authorities,” it said.

One A K Chopra had tried to molest a woman employee in an hotel in 1988 and on her complaint the inquiry officer had recommended his dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority had also agreed with the officer’s finding. Chopra’s appeal before AEPC’s staff committee was dismissed.

The HC had ordered reinstatement of the employee after holding that “it is not even possible to come to a conclusion that there is an attempt to molest as there have been no physical contact.”

The Apex Court Bench, while setting aside the HC order said, “The High Court in our opinion fell in error in interfering with the punishment, which could be lawfully imposed bythe departmental authorities on Chopra for his proven misconduct.”

“The High Court was examining disciplinary proceedings against Chopra and was not dealing with his criminal trial,” the Bench said.

“There is no gain saying that each incident of sexual harassment, at the place of work, results in violation of the fundamental right to gender equality and the right to life and liberty — the two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India.”

Citing various international conventions on the issue, the Bench said “These international instruments cast an obligation on the Indian state to gender sensitise its laws and the courts are under obligation to see that the message of the international instruments is not allowed to be drowned.”

Rejecting Chopra’s submission that he was repentant and was willing to tender an unqualified apology to the lady, the Bench said, “We are afraid, it is too late in the day to show any sympathy to the respondent in such a case.”

“Anylenient action in such a case is bound to have demoralising effect on a working woman. Sympathy in such cases is uncalled for and mercy is misplaced,” the Bench said.

The Court said “In cases involving violation of human rights, the courts must for ever remain alive to the international instruments and conventions and apply the same to a given case when there is no inconsistency between the international norms and domestic law occupying the field.”

“In the present case, the High Court appears to have totally ignored the intent and content of the international conventions and norms while dealing with the case,” the Bench observed.