Supreme Court clarifies “as far as practicable” in sexual harassment inquiries: Aureliano Fernandes vs. State of Goa (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 May 2023

Citation: Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014

Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J. and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a workplace inquiry into sexual harassment allegations be deemed fair if it rushes through proceedings, denying the accused a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in the case of Aureliano Fernandes vs. State of Goa and Others. The Court emphasized that while inquiries into sexual harassment cases must be sensitive and swift, they cannot compromise the fundamental principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing. This judgment underscores the importance of balancing the rights of complainants and the accused in such sensitive matters.

Case Background

The appellant, Aureliano Fernandes, was a lecturer and Head of the Department of Political Science at Goa University. In 2009, several female students filed complaints alleging sexual harassment against him. The university’s Standing Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace initiated an inquiry based on these complaints. The Committee served a notice to the appellant, asking for his explanation and appearance for a personal hearing. Concurrently, the University Registrar directed the appellant to hand over his charge and proceed on leave until the inquiry’s conclusion. The appellant submitted a detailed reply, raising preliminary objections and refuting the allegations. He also requested the removal of two Committee members, citing bias.

The Committee conducted multiple hearings, during which the appellant alleged that witness depositions were recorded in his absence. He was later given additional complaints and depositions. The appellant requested more time to respond and permission to engage a lawyer, which was denied. Despite his requests for postponement due to health reasons, the Committee proceeded ex-parte and submitted its report, recommending his dismissal. The Executive Council (EC) of the University accepted the report, suspended the appellant, and initiated a formal inquiry under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules). However, this inquiry was later terminated, and the EC decided to act on the Committee’s report, dismissing the appellant. The Governor, acting as the Appellate Authority, upheld the dismissal.

The appellant challenged these orders before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which dismissed his writ petition. The High Court held that the Committee had provided ample opportunities to the appellant, and he had deliberately chosen not to participate.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The judgment references key articles of the Constitution of India:

• Article 14: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. It is the bedrock of the principles of natural justice.
• Article 309: Empowers the legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State.
• Article 310: Embodies the “Doctrine of Pleasure,” stating that government servants hold office at the pleasure of the President or Governor, except as expressly provided by the Constitution.
• Article 311: Provides safeguards against dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of civil servants, ensuring that such actions are preceded by an inquiry and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The judgment also discusses the following rules:

• Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules): These rules govern the procedure for imposing penalties on government servants. Rule 14 outlines the procedure for imposing major penalties, including the requirement for an inquiry. The proviso to Rule 14(2) states that in cases of sexual harassment, the Complaints Committee is deemed to be the inquiring authority.
• Rule 3C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: Prohibits sexual harassment of working women and defines sexual harassment.
• Goa University Statute SS B-1 (XXVI): Specifies that teachers are governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules for disciplinary actions.

The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice, as reflected in Article 311, are fundamental to Article 14. Any violation of these principles amounts to a violation of Article 14, making any decision arbitrary and depriving a public servant of equal protection under the law.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant:

• The appellant argued that the dismissal order was based solely on the Committee’s report, which was merely a fact-finding exercise, not a formal inquiry.
• The inquiry was conducted hastily, concluding within 39 days, without giving adequate opportunity to defend himself.
• The Committee abruptly curtailed the time granted for submitting a reply, ignoring the appellant’s indisposition.
• The principles of natural justice were violated, depriving the appellant of a fair trial.
• No proper inquiry was conducted as per the CCS (CCA) Rules, and no charges were framed by the first Committee.
• The Articles of Charge framed later were dropped, and the Committee’s fact-finding report was relied upon, which was not a valid inquiry report.
• The Committee did not inform the appellant that the proceedings were disciplinary in nature.
• The appellant also alleged bias against some members of the Committee.

Arguments by the Respondents (Goa University):

• The respondents contended that the appellant had failed to challenge the decision to dispense with the inquiry at the appropriate stage.
• The appellant was granted multiple opportunities to submit his reply and participate in hearings, but he failed to do so.
• The Committee proceeded ex-parte only after the appellant made flimsy excuses and sought repeated adjournments.
• The proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules allows the Complaints Committee to hold an inquiry “as far as practicable,” meaning it need not strictly follow all procedures.
• The Committee had taken note of the appellant’s detailed reply and dealt with it at length.
• The principles of natural justice are not inflexible, and the facts of each case must be examined.
• The appellant was aware of the complaints and had the opportunity to respond, cross-examine witnesses, and produce his own witnesses.
• The decision to terminate the subsequent inquiry was based on the clarification in Medha Kotwal Lele, which stated that the Complaints Committee’s report is deemed an Inquiry Report.
• Adequate opportunity was provided to the appellant by the Committee, the Disciplinary Authority, and the Appellate Authority.

Submissions by Parties:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the procedure adopted by the respondents violated the principles of natural justice, causing prejudice to the appellant.
2. Whether the inquiry conducted by the Committee met the “as far as practicable” norm as prescribed in the CCS (CCA) Rules.
3. Whether the Committee understood the remit of its inquiry as a fact-finding proceeding or a disciplinary proceeding.
4. Whether the Executive Council (EC) was correct in relying on the Committee’s report and terminating the subsequent inquiry.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India and Another v. Tulsi Ram Patel [CITATION]: The Court used this case to underscore that a violation of natural justice results in arbitrariness, which is a violation of Article 14.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the procedure must be just, fair, and reasonable, not just any procedure established by law.
• Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others [CITATION]: This case was used to highlight the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to an employee to present their case, consistent with natural justice.
• A.K. Kraipak and Others v. Union of India and Others [CITATION]: The Court used this case to explain that the aim of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice, and these rules apply to administrative inquiries as well.
• Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged this case as the basis for the guidelines on sexual harassment at the workplace, which led to the enactment of the PoSH Act.
• Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v. Union of India and Others [CITATION]: The Court accepted the clarification that the Complaints Committee is deemed to be the inquiring authority but emphasized that the process still needs to be fair.
• Hira Nath Mishra and Others v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Another [CITATION] and P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others [CITATION]: These cases were cited to argue that the principles of natural justice are not inflexible, but the Court found that even with flexibility, the principles were not met in this case.
• Avinash Mishra v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court acknowledged that the expression “as far as practicable” allows some flexibility but found that the Committee’s actions went beyond what was permissible.
• Sandeep Khurana v. Delhi Transco Ltd. And Others [CITATION] and Professor Giridhar Madras v. Indian Institute of Science represented by Chairman and Others [CITATION]: The Court used these cases to highlight that the Committee’s report cannot be equated with that of an inquiry officer.
• State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Shardul Singh [CITATION], Bk. Sardari Lal v. Union of India and Others [CITATION], Moti Ram Deka v. The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway [CITATION], Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India [CITATION], and Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India and Another [CITATION]: These cases were used to explain the legal framework, the status of government servants, and the importance of due process.
• Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India [CITATION] and A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [CITATION]: These cases were used to highlight that fundamental rights are not watertight compartments and that the procedure under Article 21 must include notice, opportunity to be heard, an impartial tribunal, and an ordinary course of procedure.
• Mangilal v. State of M.P. [CITATION] and Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [CITATION]: These cases were used to explain that principles of natural justice must be observed even if a statute is silent.
• State Bank of India and Others v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty and Another [CITATION]: This case was used to explain that a hearing must be afforded to the person who is proposed to be punished with a major penalty.
• Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India [CITATION]: This case was used to highlight the significance of procedural fairness in internalizing the principles of natural justice.
• Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans [CITATION]: This case was used to explain the scope of judicial review and that the court should examine the decision-making process.
• B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [CITATION] and Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra [CITATION]: These cases were used to explain the scope of judicial review and that the court should not interfere with factual findings unless they are perverse.
• Dr. Vijaykumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Others [CITATION]: This case was used to explain that the Court must satisfy itself that the employee gets a reasonable opportunity to vindicate his position.

Decision and Implications

Final Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and the dismissal order issued by the University. The Court held that the inquiry conducted by the Committee violated the principles of natural justice and did not meet the “as far as practicable” norm prescribed in the CCS (CCA) Rules. The Court emphasized that while inquiries into sexual harassment cases must be sensitive and swift, they cannot compromise the fundamental principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing.

Implications:

• Balancing Sensitivity and Fairness: The judgment underscores the need to balance the sensitivity of sexual harassment cases with the fundamental rights of the accused. Inquiries must be conducted swiftly but not at the cost of fairness.
• Meaning of “As Far as Practicable”: The Court clarified that “as far as practicable” does not mean that the inquiry can be rushed through without adhering to basic principles of natural justice. It means that the procedure can be adapted to the specific circumstances, but the core principles must be followed.
• Importance of Procedural Fairness: The judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness in all disciplinary inquiries, especially in cases of sexual harassment. The inquiry must be conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, giving the accused a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves.
• Clarity on Committee’s Role: The judgment emphasizes the need for clarity on the role of the Complaints Committee, which should be understood as a disciplinary inquiry authority, not just a fact-finding body.
• Judicial Review: The judgment reaffirms the role of judicial review in ensuring that administrative actions are fair and just. Courts can intervene if they find that the decision-making process has been flawed.

Flowchart of Inquiry Process as per the Judgment