Courts Not To Interfere If Opportunity Has Been Given To Officer Charged In Case Of Sexual Harassment At Workplace: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court was considering a petition challenging the correctness of an Office Order that led to an Inquiry Report and a consequent Show Cause Notice issued against the petitioner.
While dismissing a petition pertaining to a case of disciplinary enquiry in a case of sexual harassment at the workplace, the Delhi High Court has held that once the principles of natural justice have been followed by granting sufficient opportunity to the charged officer, it is not expected from the Courts to interfere with violations of procedural provisions, if any.
The High Court was considering a petition challenging the correctness of an Office Order leading to an Inquiry Report and a consequent Show Cause Notice issued against the petitioner.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held, “Domestic inquiry is a fact-finding inquiry which is not governed by strict procedural provisions such as Evidence Act or other statutes alike. The purpose of domestic inquiry is to follow the principles of natural justice, while granting the charged officer sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence. Originally, efforts were made to keep the domestic inquiry/disciplinary proceedings unaffected by procedural wrangles which result in delay adversely impacting the complainant and the employer. Hence, while interpreting the provisions of domestic inquiry, efforts must be made to look at the substance and not the form or the procedure. Once the principles of natural justice have been followed by granting sufficient opportunity to the charged officer, it is not expected from the Courts to interfere with violations of procedural provision, if any. Expeditious disposal of the domestic inquiry is need of the hour and would be in the interest of everyone, especially in the complaints of sexual harassment at workplace.”
Advocate Kanika Agnihotri represented the Petitioner while Central Govt. Standing Counsel Arunima Dwivedi represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
A Standing Order No. 08/2014 [SO of 2014] implementing the provisions of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and reiterating the applicability of relevant service rules to the Charged Officers was issued. The fourth Respondent filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the Petitioner and his senior under Rule 3(c) of Central Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint, CLICC was constituted for the inquiry. The imputations of misconduct against the Petitioner were proved as he was found to have sexually harassed the fourth Respondent, thereby recommending strict disciplinary actions to be initiated against the Petitioner. Resultantly, the Respondent Disciplinary Authority issued the impugned Show Cause Notice calling upon the Petitioner to file a written representation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Reasoning
Regarding the law relating to the maintainability of a writ petition, specifically, at the stage of issuance of Show Cause Notice or Article of charge, the Bench referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) , wherein the Court has authoritatively held that a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice or a Article of Charge is ordinarily premature, as such a notice, by itself, does not give rise to any civil consequences or adverse order upon the noticee.
The Bench explained that the purpose of holding a domestic inquiry/disciplinary proceeding is also to grant an appropriate opportunity to the charged officer to prove his defence and establish that he is not guilty of the misconduct being alleged. Articles of Charges, as the name suggest are the substance of the misconduct being alleged by the employer/complainant. “Once the complaint containing the alleged misconduct has been supplied, the Petitioner was apprised of the alleged misconduct. The purpose of supply of Articles of Charges stands fulfilled, once the complaint containing the alleged misconduct has been supplied. Moreover, the Petitioner has failed to show any prejudice suffered by him upon failure to supply Articles of Charges”, it added.
The Bench thus held, “The Petitioner, having actively participated in the inquiry, and concluded his defence before Respondent No.3, cannot now raise a plea that no proper Article of Charge was issued, such a plea would amount to approbation and reprobation in the same breath. Additionally, a perusal of his statement reveals that it was the Petitioner himself who refused to participate in the procedural opportunities provided to him during the course of inquiry, having categorically stated that he was not inclined to produce any witness or further documents in support of his case.”
The Bench also rejected the proposition of the petitioner that the Office Memorandum dated July 16, 2015, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) should operate retrospectively to invalidate or reset the proceedings commenced in early 2015. “To accept the Petitioner’s argument would mean that every sexual-harassment inquiry set in motion prior to 16.07.2015 would have to be aborted and restarted, thereby leading to inordinate delays and potential denial of justice to the complainants, an outcome antithetical to both the Act of 2013 and the DoPT’s own emphasis on expeditious and effective disposal of such complaints”, it stated.
Thus, finding no merit in the Petition, the Bench dismissed the same.
Cause Title: Sh. Sapan Suman v. Union Of India (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:762-DB)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocates Kanika Agnihotri, Vaibhav Agnihotri, Ankit Singh, Vidit Pratap Singh, Harshit Kiran, Suruchi Khandelwal, Khushi Anand
Respondent: Central Govt. Standing Counsel Arunima Dwivedi, Advocates Himanshi Singh, Monalisha Pradhan, Law Officer Vinod Sawant, Avinash Yadav, I/C (C.R. Vig.), Ramniwas Yadav, CRPF