Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Teacher in Sexual Harassment Case: Lucy Sequeira Trust vs. Kailash Ramesh Tandel (2019)

Date of the Judgment: April 08, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 343

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indira Banerjee, J.

Can a school management terminate a teacher’s employment based on a departmental inquiry, even when criminal proceedings on similar charges are pending? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed this crucial question concerning the balance between departmental action and criminal justice. The Court upheld the termination of a teacher accused of sexual harassment, emphasizing the independence of departmental proceedings from criminal trials. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Indira Banerjee, with Justice Uday Umesh Lalit authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the termination of Respondent No. 1, an Assistant Teacher, by the Appellant, a school run by the Lucy Sequeira Trust. The teacher faced allegations of misconduct, specifically sexual harassment of adolescent girl students. The timeline of events is as follows:

• September 1, 2004: Respondent No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher.
• May 4, 2009: A warning was issued to Respondent No. 1 for his objectionable behavior with adolescent girl students.
• December 14, 2012: A mother of a teenaged student complained about Respondent No. 1.
• January 24, 2013: A memo was issued to Respondent No. 1 following the complaint.
• February 5, 2013: An FIR (C.R. No. 67/13) was filed against Respondent No. 1 under Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by a student.
• February 11, 2013: The same student filed a written complaint against Respondent No. 1.
• February 15, 2013: The Appellant sought permission to suspend Respondent No. 1 and conduct an inquiry.
• July 31, 2013: Respondent No. 1 was informed that his confidential report was not good.
• January 16, 2014: A father of another adolescent girl complained about Respondent No. 1’s behavior.
• January 20, 2014: The Appellant wrote a letter to Respondent No. 1, which he refused to acknowledge.
• January 21, 2014: An FIR (C.R. No. 25/2014) was lodged against Respondent No. 1 under Section 354(a) of the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Respondent No. 1 was arrested.
• January 28, 2014: Respondent No. 1 was released from custody.
• January 31, 2014: The school committee resolved to take action against Respondent No. 1.
• March 4, 2014: Respondent No. 1 was suspended pending inquiry.
• March 7, 2014: Statement of allegations was issued to Respondent No. 1.
• April 7, 2014: A charge-sheet was issued to Respondent No. 1.
• April 21, 2014: An Inquiry Committee was constituted.
• September 20, 2014: The Convenor of the Inquiry Committee submitted a report recommending termination.
• September 26, 2014: The Appellant terminated Respondent No. 1’s service.
• December 15, 2014: The School Tribunal rejected the stay application filed by Respondent No. 1.
• February 17, 2017: The School Tribunal partly allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
• September 4, 2017: The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant, upholding the Tribunal’s order.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Respondent No. 1 appealed his termination to the School Tribunal, Mumbai Region, Mumbai, under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977. The Tribunal initially rejected his stay application on December 15, 2014. However, on February 17, 2017, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remitting the matter for fresh consideration. The Tribunal noted that two members of the Inquiry Committee, the State Awardee Teacher and the Nominee of Respondent No. 1, had not given a firm decision, believing it would amount to contempt of court given the pending criminal proceedings. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy [(1996) 9 SCC 322], stating that if an inquiry is faulty, the matter should be remitted to the disciplinary authority to follow the procedure from the point where the fault occurred.

The Tribunal directed that the inquiry be conducted afresh from the stage of submission of the joint and combined final report by all members of the Inquiry Committee. It also ordered the notional reinstatement of Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of conducting the inquiry.

The Appellant challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay via Writ Petition No. 4383 of 2017. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on September 4, 2017, upholding the Tribunal’s order. The High Court agreed that the Tribunal was justified in remitting the matter due to the lack of clear opinions from two members of the Inquiry Committee. The High Court also directed that the inquiry be completed within three months.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, and the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977. The relevant provisions include:

• Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: These rules govern the conditions of service for employees in private schools in Maharashtra. The rules outline the procedures for conducting disciplinary inquiries, including the formation of an Inquiry Committee and the process for issuing charge sheets.
• Rule 33(6) of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981: This rule pertains to the procedures for conducting an inquiry against an employee.
• Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977: This section provides for appeals against decisions made by the school management to the School Tribunal.
• Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of insulting the modesty of a woman.
• Section 354(a) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of sexual harassment.
• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: This act provides for the protection of children from sexual offenses. Sections 9(f), 10 and 11 of this Act were also invoked against the Respondent No. 1.

The legal framework also considers the principle that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct, with different purposes, standards of proof, and approaches.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The Appellant argued that the management had taken the decision to terminate the services of Respondent No.1 after a proper inquiry.
• The Appellant contended that five girl students had given statements before the Inquiry Committee, and two of them had filed criminal proceedings against Respondent No. 1.
• The Appellant submitted that the girls were in the age range of 13-14 years, and it would be hazardous to have a teacher like Respondent No. 1 in the school.
• The Appellant argued that the approach of two out of three members of the Inquiry Committee was incorrect, and the management was competent to take a decision consistent with the findings of the Convenor.
• The Appellant stated that the decision was arrived at in a transparent manner and was supported by the facts on record.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The Respondent argued that the Inquiry Committee comprised three representatives, and the State Awardee Teacher, an impartial observer, had concluded that the inquiry must await the conclusion of criminal cases.
• The Respondent submitted that there was no justification for the management to issue an order of termination.
• The Respondent contended that the Tribunal was justified in remitting the matter for fresh consideration.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the School Tribunal and the High Court were correct in remitting the matter for fresh consideration.
2. Whether the management was justified in terminating the services of Respondent No. 1 based on the report of the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee.
3. Whether the pendency of criminal proceedings should have any bearing on the departmental 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?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Dr. Harbhajan Singh Greasy [(1996) 9 SCC 322], stating that the Tribunal had incorrectly relied on it.
• The Supreme Court relied on Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra [(1999) 1 SCC 759] to emphasize the need for a sensitive approach in cases of sexual harassment.

The Court held that the departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are completely different. The purpose, standard of proof, and approach are different in both. The Court also held that the initiation of a departmental proceeding, especially on charges of sexual harassment, cannot be said to be amounting to contempt of court even if criminal proceedings were pending.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the seriousness of the allegations of sexual harassment against Respondent No. 1 and the need to protect the safety and well-being of the students. The Court emphasized the independence of departmental proceedings from criminal proceedings and the importance of a sensitive approach in cases of sexual harassment. The Court found the approach of the Nominee of Respondent No. 1 and the State Awardee Teacher to be completely wrong and unsustainable, as they were unnecessarily bogged down by the question of contempt of court.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was driven by the factual findings of the Inquiry Committee, particularly the statements of the girl students and the seriousness of the charges. While legal principles were applied, the factual context weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the alternative interpretation that the departmental inquiry should be stayed until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The Court emphasized that the departmental inquiry was necessary to maintain the sanctity of the school environment and protect the students.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The seriousness of the allegations of sexual harassment against Respondent No. 1.
• The need to protect the safety and well-being of the students.
• The independence of departmental proceedings from criminal proceedings.
• The flawed approach of the Nominee of Respondent No. 1 and the State Awardee Teacher.
• The management’s decision to terminate the services of Respondent No. 1 was fair, transparent, and consistent with the findings of the Convenor of the Inquiry Committee.

The Court quoted from Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra [(1999) 1 SCC 759]: “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 get swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities or the dictionary meaning of the expression “molestation”.”

The Court also stated, “The initiation of the process in a departmental proceeding, specially on charges with which we are concerned in the present matter can never be said to be amounting to contempt of court even if the criminal proceedings were pending.”

The Court further observed, “The allegations made against Respondent No.1 were of such level and dimension that an immediate action on the departmental front was required to be undertaken and such action by its very nature had to be completely independent.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Departmental inquiries in cases of sexual harassment are independent of criminal proceedings and should be conducted without waiting for the outcome of criminal trials.
• School managements have a duty to act promptly and decisively when allegations of sexual harassment are made against teachers.
• The safety and well-being of students are paramount, and the management’s decisions should reflect this priority.
• Inquiry Committees should not be swayed by concerns about contempt of court when conducting departmental inquiries.
• The standard of proof in departmental inquiries is based on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal trials.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court and affirmed the order of termination of Respondent No. 1 passed by the Appellant.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that departmental inquiries in cases of sexual harassment are independent of criminal proceedings and should be conducted without waiting for the outcome of criminal trials. This judgment reinforces the principle that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings are distinct, with different purposes, standards of proof, and approaches. This case clarifies that the pendency of criminal proceedings should not hinder the progress of departmental inquiries, especially in cases involving serious misconduct such as sexual harassment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. The Court upheld the termination of Respondent No. 1, emphasizing the independence of departmental inquiries from criminal proceedings and the importance of a sensitive approach in cases of sexual harassment. The judgment underscores the duty of school managements to act promptly and decisively to protect students from harm and maintain the integrity of the educational environment.

Category

• Service Law
  • Termination of Service
  • Departmental Inquiry
  • Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981
  • Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools Act, 1977
• Sexual Harassment
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
  • Section 354(a), Indian Penal Code
  • Section 509, Indian Penal Code
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 354(a), Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 509, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
  • Section 9(f), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
  • Section 10, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
  • Section 11, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012

FAQ

Q: Can a school terminate a teacher’s employment based on a departmental inquiry if criminal proceedings are also ongoing?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has clarified that departmental inquiries and criminal proceedings are independent. A school can terminate a teacher’s employment based on a departmental inquiry even if criminal proceedings related to the same allegations are pending.

Q: What is the standard of proof in a departmental inquiry?
A: The standard of proof in a departmental inquiry is based on the preponderance of probabilities, which is different from the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt” used in criminal trials.

Q: What should a school do if it receives complaints of sexual harassment against a teacher?
A: The school should initiate a departmental inquiry promptly and take appropriate action to protect the students. The school should not wait for the outcome of any criminal proceedings.

Q: What is the significance of the judgment in the context of sexual harassment cases?
A: The judgment emphasizes the need for a sensitive approach in cases of sexual harassment and clarifies that departmental inquiries are essential to maintain the integrity of the educational environment and protect students. It underscores that the pendency of criminal proceedings should not hinder the progress of departmental inquiries.