Supreme Court Quashes Dismissal in Sexual Harassment Case, Emphasizes Fair Inquiry: Aureliano Fernandes vs. State of Goa (2023) INSC 527 (12 May 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 527
Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J., Hima Kohli, J. (authored the judgment)

Can an employer dismiss an employee based on a sexual harassment inquiry that did not fully adhere to procedural norms? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning a university professor dismissed for alleged sexual harassment. The court emphasized that while expeditious handling of such cases is important, it cannot come at the cost of violating principles of natural justice and fair procedure. The judgment underscores the necessity of balancing the rights of complainants and the accused, ensuring that inquiries are both thorough and fair.

Case Background

Aureliano Fernandes, the appellant, began his career as a Temporary Lecturer in the Department of Political Science at Goa University in 1996 and was appointed Head of the Department in 2003. In 2009, two female students submitted complaints to the University alleging physical harassment by him. This led to an inquiry by the Standing Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment at the Workplace (the Committee). The Committee served a notice to the appellant, asking him to explain the charges and appear for a hearing. The Registrar of the University also directed the appellant to hand over charge and proceed on leave until the inquiry’s conclusion.

The appellant submitted a detailed reply, raising objections to the inquiry and alleging a conspiracy against him. He also requested the removal of two Committee members, citing bias. The Committee conducted hearings, allegedly recording depositions of complainants and witnesses while the appellant waited outside. The appellant’s request to engage a lawyer was denied. Despite seeking more time and submitting medical certificates, the Committee proceeded ex-parte against the appellant and submitted a report recommending his termination.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Executive Council (EC) of Goa University accepted the Committee’s report and suspended the appellant. The EC then initiated a separate inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS (CCA) Rules], appointing a former High Court Judge as an Inquiry Officer. However, this inquiry was later terminated, and the EC decided to rely on the Committee’s report. The Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appellant, and 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 given the appellant ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses but that he had deliberately chosen not to appear. The High Court also rejected the appellant’s claims of bias and undue haste in the inquiry proceedings.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Article 309 of the Constitution of India: This article empowers the appropriate legislature to make laws and the President or Governor to make rules regarding the recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State.
• Article 310 of the Constitution of India: This article 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 of the Constitution of India: This article provides safeguards against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank of civil servants. It mandates an inquiry where the person is informed of the charges and given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The second proviso to Article 311(2) lists exceptions where such inquiry may not be required.
• Rule 3C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: This rule prohibits sexual harassment of working women and requires every government servant in charge of a workplace to take steps to prevent such harassment.
• Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules: This rule outlines the procedure for imposing major penalties on government servants. It states that for complaints of sexual harassment, the Complaints Committee shall be deemed the inquiring authority and shall conduct the inquiry “as far as practicable” in accordance with the rules.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that these articles and rules must be interpreted in light of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.

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 proceeding, not a proper inquiry.
• He contended that the inquiry was conducted hurriedly, without affording him adequate opportunity to defend himself.
• The appellant stated that the Committee abruptly curtailed the time granted to him for submitting his reply and presenting his case.
• He argued that no proper inquiry was conducted, and no charges were framed by the Committee before submitting its report.
• The appellant stated that the Articles of Charge framed by the respondents were subsequently dropped, and the inquiry was abandoned in favor of the Committee’s report, which could not be relied upon as a final inquiry.
• He argued that the Committee did not inform him that the proceedings were disciplinary in nature.
• He cited Union of India and Another v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398] to argue that none of the clauses to the second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution could have been resorted to by the respondents.
• He cited Sandeep Khurana v. Delhi Transco Ltd. And Others [ILR 2006 (11) Del 1313] and Professor Giridhar Madras v. Indian Institute of Science represented by Chairman and Others [(2019) SCC Online Kar 3508] to argue that the Committee’s report could not be equated with the report of an Inquiry Officer.
• He alleged bias against some members of the Committee.

Arguments by Respondents No. 2 & 3 (Goa University):

• The respondents argued that the appellant did not challenge the decision to dispense with the inquiry contemplated in the Memorandum dated 8th September, 2009 at the appropriate stage.
• They submitted that the appellant was granted multiple opportunities to submit his reply and participate in the proceedings, but he did not do so.
• The respondents stated that the Committee proceeded ex-parte only after the appellant failed to appear and made excuses.
• They argued that the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules allows the Committee discretion not to strictly follow the entire procedure, as long as the charged officer is given adequate opportunity to explain his stand. They cited Avinash Mishra v. Union of India [2014 SCC Online Del 1856] to justify this.
• The respondents stated that the Committee had taken note of the detailed reply submitted by the appellant on 25th April, 2009 and had dealt with the same at considerable length.
• They cited Hira Nath Mishra and Others v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Another [(1973) 1 SCC 805] and P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 776] to argue that principles of natural justice are not inflexible.
• They argued that the appellant was well aware of the charges against him and was given ample opportunity to respond, cross-examine witnesses, and produce his own witnesses.
• They stated that the decision to terminate the subsequently constituted inquiry was due to the order in Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2013) 1 SCC 297], which clarified that the Complaints Committee’s report is deemed an Inquiry Report under the CCS (CCA) Rules.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the inquiry conducted by the Committee adhered to the principles of natural justice and the “as far as practicable” norm under Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
2. Whether the dismissal order based on the Committee’s report was valid, given the procedural lapses.
3. Whether the Executive Council and the Disciplinary Authority acted correctly in relying on the Committee’s report and terminating the subsequent inquiry.
4. Whether the High Court was correct in upholding the dismissal order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered several authorities while arriving at its decision:

On the Principles of Natural Justice:

• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another [(1978) 1 SCC 248] – Supreme Court of India: Established that procedure under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable, and that the audi alteram partem rule is essential.
• Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others [(1991) Supp (1) SCC 600] – Supreme Court of India: Highlighted the importance of a reasonable opportunity for an employee to present their case in a domestic inquiry.
• Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India & Others [(2023) SCC Online 366] – Supreme Court of India: Emphasized that procedural fairness is not just a means to a just outcome but a requirement with inherent value.
• A.K. Kraipak and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1969) 2 SCC 262] – Supreme Court of India: Stated that the aim of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and that these rules can apply to administrative inquiries.
• Mangilal v. State of M.P. [(2004) 2 SCC 447] – Supreme Court of India: Declared that principles of natural justice must be observed even if a Statute is silent.
• Union of India and Another v. Tulsiram Patel [(1985) 3 SCC 398] – Supreme Court of India: Observed that violation of natural justice results in arbitrariness and that the audi alteram partem rule requires a fair hearing.
• Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India [(1981) 1 SCC 664] – Supreme Court of India: Held that statutory silence implies compliance with natural justice, unless excluded by express words or intendment.

On Service Law and Sexual Harassment:

• State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Shardul Singh [(1970) 1 SCC 108] – Supreme Court of India: Defined “conditions of service” to include the right to dismiss a person from service.
• B.K. Sardari Lal v. Union of India and Others [(1971) 1 SCC 411] – Supreme Court of India: Held that a statute or rule can prescribe the procedure and authority to initiate disciplinary action.
• Moti Ram Deka v. The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway [(1964) 5 SCR 683] – Supreme Court of India: Held that any Act or Rule that violates the rights under Article 311 would be void.
• Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India [(1968) 1 SCR 185] – Supreme Court of India: Stated that government servants acquire status and their rights are governed by statute or rules.
• Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India and Another [(2020) 13 SCC 56] – Supreme Court of India: Held that Article 311 requires an opportunity of hearing before a decision against a public servant.
• Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others [(1997) 6 SCC 241] – Supreme Court of India: Laid down guidelines to address sexual harassment at the workplace.
• Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2013) 1 SCC 297] – Supreme Court of India: Clarified that the Complaints Committee is the Inquiry Authority for CCS Rules.
• Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra [(1999) 1 SCC 759] – Supreme Court of India: Held that the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts in departmental proceedings.
• Dr. Vijaykumaran C.P.V. v. Central University of Kerala and Others [(2020) 12 SCC 426] – Supreme Court of India: Emphasized that an employee gets a reasonable opportunity to vindicate his position in sexual harassment cases.
• State Bank of India and Others v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 807] – Supreme Court of India: Held that a hearing must be afforded to a person proposed to be punished with a major penalty.

On the Interpretation of Rules:

• Avinash Mishra v. Union of India [2014 SCC Online Del 1856] – Delhi High Court: Justified that the expression “as far as practicable” indicates that the Committee is vested with the discretion not to strictly follow the entire procedure.
• Hira Nath Mishra and Others v. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Another [(1973) 1 SCC 805] – Supreme Court of India: Argued that principles of natural justice is not an inflexible doctrine.
• P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 776] – Supreme Court of India: Argued that facts and circumstance of each case have to be examined to see whether the requirements of natural justice stand satisfied.
• Sandeep Khurana v. Delhi Transco Ltd. And Others [ILR 2006 (11) Del 1313] – Delhi High Court: Held that the Report of the Committee could not be equated with the report of an Inquiry officer.
• Professor Giridhar Madras v. Indian Institute of Science represented by Chairman and Others [(2019) SCC Online Kar 3508] – Karnataka High Court: Held that the Report of the Committee could not be equated with the report of an Inquiry officer.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the dismissal order. The Court held that the inquiry by the Committee did not adhere to the principles of natural justice and the “as far as practicable” norm under Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The Court emphasized that the Committee had acted with undue haste, curtailing the appellant’s opportunity to present his case effectively.

The Court stated that the Committee’s report could not be treated as a final inquiry report, and the Executive Council and Disciplinary Authority had erred in relying solely on it. The Court also found that the High Court had failed to recognize the procedural lapses and the violation of natural justice principles.

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court, the Disciplinary Authority, and the Appellate Authority, and directed the respondents to reinstate the appellant with all consequential benefits. The Court clarified that this decision does not imply that the appellant is exonerated of the charges of sexual harassment, and the University is free to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings against the appellant, if so advised, in accordance with the rules and principles of natural justice.

Flowchart of Proceedings

Key Takeaways

This judgment underscores several critical points:

• Importance of Natural Justice: The Supreme Court emphasized that principles of natural justice, including the right to be heard and the right to a fair inquiry, are paramount in disciplinary proceedings, especially in cases of sexual harassment.
• “As Far as Practicable” Norm: The “as far as practicable” norm in Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules does not permit dispensing with procedural fairness. The inquiry must be conducted fairly and reasonably, ensuring that the accused has an adequate opportunity to present their case.
• Fair Inquiry in Sexual Harassment Cases: While expeditious handling of sexual harassment complaints is necessary, it cannot come at the cost of violating the rights of the accused. A balanced approach is required to protect the rights of both the complainant and the accused.
• Role of the Complaints Committee: The Complaints Committee’s report is deemed an Inquiry Report under CCS (CCA) Rules, but it must still adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Committee must conduct a thorough and fair inquiry, providing the accused with reasonable time and opportunity to defend themselves.
• Judicial Review: The judiciary has a crucial role in ensuring that disciplinary proceedings are conducted fairly and in accordance with the law. The High Court’s failure to recognize the procedural lapses was corrected by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Aureliano Fernandes vs. State of Goa serves as a critical reminder of the importance of procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings, particularly in sexual harassment cases. The judgment emphasizes that while expeditious handling of such cases is essential, it cannot come at the cost of violating the principles of natural justice and fair procedure. The Court’s ruling underscores the need for a balanced approach that protects the rights of both the complainant and the accused, ensuring that inquiries are thorough, fair, and in accordance with the law.