In the Supreme Court of India (Civil Appellate jurisdiction)
Civil appeal no. 6190 of 2023

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S)

Vs

DILIP PAUL …RESPONDENT(S)

On 6th November 2023, a three Judge bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that sexual harassment in any form must be viewed seriously, and sexual harassers cannot be allowed to go free due to hyper technicalities of Court. 

A look at the highlights of this landmark judgment:

Facts of the case

1. Mr. Dilip Paul was working as the area organizer (“Mr. Dilip”) of the Service Selection Board (SSB), Rangia in Assam from 2006 to 2012. He was super annuated from service in March 2013.
2. The complainant (“Lady”) was working as the field assistant in the office with Mr. Dilip from 2009. The complainant alleged being subjected to sexual harassment by Mr. Dilip she alleged that he would indulge in acts such as teasing her, calling her at odd hours, asking her to “keep him satisfied”, using multi meaning words and visiting her residence without invitation and interacting with her children. When she complained to her senior in 2010, he gave a stern warning to Mr. Dilip. Enraged, Mr. Dilip subjected her to emotional harassment by not allocating any work to her and letting her sit idle.
3. In August 2011, she lodged a complaint to the Inspector General (IG) with Frontier Headquarters, Guwahati and National Women’s Rights Commission, New Delhi. However, the allegations could not substantially be proved. Pending inquiry, the Ministry of Home Affairs constituted a Central Complaints Committee (CCC), since the matter was pertaining to a department in the armed forces / paramilitary forces. The complainant lodged an additional complaint.
4. The CCC conducted a detailed inquiry into both complaints and ascertained that the complaint of sexual harassment by Dilip on the complainant were proven. As a strong deterrent, the CCC recommended stringent penalties such as not giving promotion and de-recognizing medals awarded to him. Further based on the UPSC suggestion, Mr. Dilip was imposed penalty of withholding 50% of monthly pension permanently. The gratuity amount could be released to him.
5. Aggrieved, Mr. Dilip approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati (CAT) challenging the constitution of the CCC and further setting aside the penalties imposed by the said committee. The CAT upheld the penalty imposed by the CCC.
6. Aggrieved, Mr. Dilip filed a writ petition in the High Court of Guwahati. The HC set aside the penalty / order of the CCC on grounds that the CCC was authorized to inquire into the first complaint and not the additional complaint made by the complainant. Mr. Dilip was not given the opportunity of being heard in the initial inquiry. The standing order of the SSB does not expressly contain a provision for the same. Further, the CCC acted as the prosecutor by cross examining / questioning the witnesses and Mr. Dilip. This was beyond the scope of functioning of the CCC. Based on this the HC set aside the penalty imposed on Mr. Dilip.
7. Aggrieved, the complainant Lady filed an appeal against the order of the Guwahati HC before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Contentions / Submissions
Mr. Dilip Paul

1. The CCA Rules do not expressly allow for a second inquiry. Despite inquiries were initiated by Frontline Committee, CCC and National Women’s Rights Commission.
2. Judicial review of such cases is limited to analyzing if the inquiry has been conducted correctly. Also, there is no scope for more than one inquiry to be conducted except for certain exceptional cases.
3. The CCC shall look into the legality of the findings of the inquiry. It does not have authority to include additional allegations filed in subsequent complaints filed on the issue. As such the CCC acted beyond its powers by acting as prosecutor and examining witnesses and the alleged perpetrator.
4. The exemplary service and medal records of the alleged perpetrator have not been considered in deciding on his innocence.

Complainant/Lady

1. There was no violation of the principles of natural justice as Mr. Dilip was given an opportunity of being heard before in the course of inclusion before arriving at a conclusion.
2. The judicial review in such cases is to ensure the inquiry is conducted in a fair manner and restricted only to reviewing the decision. Despite the fact that the perpetrator was a senior officer with exemplary service and medals to his credit, the penalty of withholding 50% of his pension permanently is justified for him indulging in sexual harassment.

Analysis / Judgment
While considering a host of decided case laws, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that:

1. In judicial review of disciplinary matters especially pertaining to sexual harassment, courts should not decide based on minor procedural slip ups or technicalities. Importance must be placed on the issue and the evidence placed to substantiate the grave charge of sexual harassment. (Union of India & Ors Vs Mudrika Singh (2021 SCC Online SC 1173)
   The SC upheld the Guwahati HC order of allowing the CCC to inquire into subsequent complaints filed as being in line with 2006 standing orders relating to inquiries.
2. The Apex Court was of the view that in the course of judicial review, the competent authority can accept further evidence as long as fair opportunity is provided to the accused / perpetrator. The ‘doctrine of test of prejudice’ should be applied when there seem to be procedural slip ups or violations – whether the right to be heard has been granted (or denied) to the accused / perpetrator (State Bank of Patiala and Others v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364). In the present case, Mr. Dilip was given an opportunity of being heard in the course of the inquiry.
3. Decisions of the inquiry or review must be based on material evidence which has probative value. Adequacy of such evidence is not within the scope of the High Court (Union of India Vs HC Goel (AIR 1964 SC 364)).
4. Courts shall intervene on how a decision was arrived at only if it finds such decision is grossly disproportionate to the offence. (R. Mahalingam v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (2013) 14 SCC 379).
5. In disciplinary matters such as sexual harassment, the case shall be decided based on the probability of occurrence rather than establishing beyond reasonable doubt.

Based on the above, the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal filed by the complainant Lady and upheld the penalty imposed on the accused / perpetrator.

The judgment in this case is landmark as it reiterates that sexual harassment in any form at the work-place must be viewed seriously and the harasser should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law due to minor procedural slip ups or hyper technicalities of Court procedures.

For full text of the Judgment:

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/38770/38770_2019_1_1502_48065_Judgement_06-Nov-2023.pdf