Sexual harassment at place of work:
SC upholds dismissal

NEW DELHI, Jan 20 (PTI) — The Supreme Court, in a strongly worded judgement, today upheld dismissal of an employee on sexual harassment charges, saying lenient action in such cases was bound to have a demoralising effect on working women.

"Sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated and that there can be no compromise with such violations, amids of no debate," a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.S. Anand and Justice V.N. Khare said.

Setting aside a High Court order directing reinstatement of an employee in the apparel export promotion council, dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry, the Bench said: "The entire approach of the High Court has been faulty."

"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 High Court.

"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 a 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 High Court 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 has been no physical contact."

The Apex Court Bench, while setting aside the High Court order said: "The High Court in our opinion fell in error in interfering with the punishment, which could be lawfully imposed by the 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.

"Any lenient action in such a case is bound to have a demoralising effect on 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 instant 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.

"In a case involving charge of sexual harassment or attempt to sexually molest, the courts are required to examine the broader probabilities of a case and not to get swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities or dictionary meaning of the expression molestation," it said.