Recently, in a judgment dated August 6, 2019, the Karnataka High Court in the case of Giridhar Madras v. The Indian Institute of Science and Ors. set aside the inquiry report against a professor and directed the concerned authorities to initiate action against the Director of The Indian Institute of Science (“College”) and members of its internal committee for violating key provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“Law”).
Facts: Giridhar Madras (“Petitioner”) filed the writ petition to quash the report of the IC dated February 28, 2018, and the consequential order of compulsory retirement dated October 17, 2018, passed by the College. Petitioner was a Professor in the College and a Guide to Respondent No. 3 (“Complainant”), who was a student. She had certain grudges against the petitioner relating to alleged sexual harassment while associated with the petitioner. Therefore, she had given an oral complaint on December 10, 2016, which was recorded in writing by the Internal Committee (“IC”). The IC proceeded to hold a preliminary investigation, and thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner while not revealing the identity of the complainant. In this backdrop, on December 23, 2016, a written complaint was filed before the IC by the complainant. The IC met with the petitioner on January 11, 2017, and orally requested that he provide another response. At this juncture, the complainant requested the IC not to proceed further with the inquiry on January 20, 2017.
When things stood thus, the complainant again filed a complaint with the IC, stating that she was being ignored by the petitioner for work-related matters. Thereafter, the petitioner was made aware of the identity of the complainant after nearly 140 days from the receipt of the first complaint. It was further found that there was a certain defect in constituting the IC, which was thus reconstituted as ICASH (“New IC”). The New IC proceeded to hold an inquiry and submitted an inquiry report, recommending taking action against the petitioner on February 28, 2018, after recording the testimonies of 32 witnesses and other documents. A communication was made to the petitioner along with an inquiry report seeking an explanation after almost 3 months on May 2, 2018 and on September 14, 2018, when the petitioner requested voluntary retirement. In this backdrop, the petitioner was retired compulsorily as a measure of penalty, while extending 75% of the admissible pension.
Arguments: The counsel for the petitioner argued that other than an audio clip containing a conversation held between the complainant and a witness, no other documents were presented in the inquiry. Further, the first and second statements of witness No. 1 were contradictory to each other. The complainant had also not produced any material evidence, like phone records or transcripts of WhatsApp messages, in order to corroborate her allegations. The petitioner also brought forth many procedural and timeline lapses on the part of the IC. Some of which are: a copy of the complaint was not communicated to the accused within 7 days; an inquiry report crossed the 90-day period; and before imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, he was not issued a show cause notice, duly proposing punishment. Also, he was not given a fair opportunity to present his case as Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 (“Rules”) provided that the accused must be given written charges, be allowed to inspect the documentary evidence, test oral evidence by cross-examination, and furnish his own evidence. Further, there was a violation of Sections 16 and 17 (provisions relating to confidentiality) of the law.
The counsel for the college stated that the allegations against the petitioner were elaborately analysed and corroborated by witnesses. Also, separate charges need not be formulated since a copy of the complaint was provided to the petitioner. The counsel for the college further contends that Rule 14(4) states that the procedure must be followed ‘as far as practicable’, which means the process is flexible based on special situations.
Held: The Court elucidated the purpose of the law and at length examined the facts of the case. On the allegation of violation of confidentiality by the new IC and the director, the court opined, “It is evident that the director and the new IC have given statements to the press. Both the director and the new IC have not approached the author of news items, contending that they have not issued any statements to the press. Therefore, prima facie, it is evident that both the Director and the New IC have committed errors in giving statements to the press and have violated the aforesaid provisions. In this regard, competent authority is directed to take action in accordance with law for violating Sections 16 and 17 of the law after providing ample opportunity to them.”
On the issue of procedural inefficiencies regarding inquiry proceedings, the Court held that “inquiry has been held, only thing it should have been adhered to the provisions for imposition of major penalty under the Rules. New IC as soon as on receipt of complaint should have referred to Disciplinary Authority. The disciplinary authority should have taken appropriate steps to initiate an inquiry under the rules and by framing articles of charge, statements of imputation, lists of documents, and lists of witnesses while appointing the committee as the inquiry authority. If a statute is prescribed in a particular manner, it should be carried out only in that manner.
Further, the court observed that “accordingly, the petitioner has made out a case to interfere with the impugned order by not following statutory provisions from the stage of receipt of the complaint and not forwarding it to the disciplinary authority. The New IC has committed serious errors in not adhering to the procedures under the Rules. Similarly, the disciplinary authority on receipt of the inquiry report should have treated it as a preliminary report and proceeded to initiate an inquiry under the Rules. Thus, due to lapses on the part of the New IC and Disciplinary Authority, the whole proceedings are vitiated until the imposition of penalties.”
The Court further held, “In the instant case, due to the lack or ignorance of procedures prescribed under the Rules, the Law, and various official memoranda issued by the Government of India from time to time, the New IC and Disciplinary Authority have committed errors in not following stipulated provisions. Therefore, it is necessary to have a refresher training programme for those New IC Members as well as the Disciplinary Authority. In this regard, the Government of India, the Disciplinary Authority, and experts like trained persons should conduct a program to learn how to conduct an inquiry in a sexual harassment case. The Department of Personnel and Training is requested to make the necessary arrangements for a refresher training programme for the members of the New IC and disciplinary authorities so as to avoid any procedural or statutory violations in conducting inquiries and punishing concerned government servants, employees, students, and other staff of the department, organization, or institutio.”
PAW Comment: Through this judgment, the Court has elaborated upon the importance of following the proper procedure while handling any case of sexual harassment. It is pertinent to note that IC members must be well trained in the law, rules of natural justice, and applicable service rules so that inquiries are conducted properly without leading to any liability for either the employer or the IC. Similarly, the provisions in the law related to confidentiality must be followed at all times or could lead to strict action, as shown in this case.