Justice Ajit Kumar, Allahabad High Court
Head Of Department Can Be Placed Under Suspension In Matters Of Sexual Harassment Complaints Where Final Decision Is Yet To Be Taken: Allahabad High Court
|A District Program Officer, had approached the Allahabad High Court assailing the order of suspension passed against him by the Chief Secretary Child Development and Nutrition.
The Allahabad High Court has held that if the employee is regularly discharging duties in a position that he holds as a head of the department, in matters of complaint of sexual harassment where a decision is yet to be taken finally by the authority, the authority may place the said employee under suspension.
The Petitioner, who was posted and working as District Program Officer, had invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the order of suspension passed against him by the Chief Secretary Child Development and Nutrition, Uttar Pradesh.
The Single Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar observed, “Naturally if the employee is regularly discharging duties on a position that he holds as a head of the department, in matters of complaint of sexual harassment where a decision is yet to be taken finally by the authority, the authority may place the said employee under suspension firstly as a confidence building measure amongst the working women in the department and secondly to ensure that such an officer may not abuse his position to pressurize other working women or otherwise also to the aggrieved women even while the final action is still pending consideration.”
Advocate Siddharth Khare represented the Petitioner while C.S.C. represented the Respondent.
Arguments
The suspension order was challenged on the ground that the words spoken to the aggrieved woman did not amount to sexual harassment concerning her workplace. It was the Petitioner’s case that the internal complaint committee was not duly constituted as mandatorily required under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. It was further his case that he was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant as well as to make representation against the findings before the committee itself as contemplated under Section 11.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, observed, “It is well-settled principle in service jurisprudence that suspension is no punishment. An employee is placed under suspension by the employer only to ensure that he is not able to influence the enquiry in any manner, in as much as he is not able to interfere with the evidence or also in such cases where the employer finds it necessary to place an employee under suspension so as to have smooth disposal of disciplinary Proceedings.”
On the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the circumstances and the manner in which the ‘body shaming’ as verbal remarks had been attributed to the petitioner by the aggrieved women at the workplace may constitute sexual harassment. “However, observation if made as a final view in this regard may run adverse to the petitioner and may influence the disciplinary authority in taking final action therefore, I refrain myself from expressing any final view qua the act of ‘body shaming’ but since the petitioner has been indicted by the internal complaint committee, prima facie a case is made out to justify the department in placing the petitioner under suspension pending final action in the disciplinary proceedings”, it said.
The Bench was also of the view that the issue of non-compliance of provisions for constituting an internal complaint committee or that procedure having not been followed as contemplated under Section 11 can be looked into by the appellate authority exercising its power under Section 18 in the event the petitioner prefers an appeal.
Thus, declining to grant indulgence in the matter of suspension, the Bench disposed of the Petition with a direction to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within four weeks. “It is further provided that until the appeal is finally decided no disciplinary action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the recommendations made by the internal complaint committee and suspension of petitioner shall also abide by the final out come of the appeal, however, petitioner shall be regularly paid subsistence allowance so long as he remains under suspension”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Shailendra Kumar Rai v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:92288)
Appearance
Petitioner: Advocate Siddharth Khare
Respondent: C.S.C., Advocate Ghan Shyam Yadad