2023 Supreme(SC) 508

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli, JJ.
Aureliano Fernandes – Appellant
Versus
State of Goa and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014
Decided On : 12-05-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Denial of principles of natural justice to a public servant can invalidate a decision taken on the ground that it is hit by vice of arbitrariness and would result in depriving a public servant of equal protection of law.
(2) Allegation of sexual harassment at work place – An inquiry that can culminate into imposition of a major penalty like termination of service of an employee, must doubly conform to a just, fair and reasonable procedure.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 309, 310 and 311 – Dismissal from service without inquiry – Principles of natural justice that are reflected in Article 311, are not an empty incantation – They form very bedrock of Article 14 and any violation of these principles tantamounts to a violation of Article 14 of Constitution – Denial of principles of natural justice to a public servant can invalidate a decision taken on the ground that it is hit by vice of arbitrariness and would result in depriving a public servant of equal protection of law – Golden thread that weaves through Articles 309, 310 and 311 is public interest, directed towards larger public good – Together, they form a triad and symbolize overarching Doctrine of Public Policy. (Paras 33 and 34)

(B) Natural Justice – Rule of Audi Alteram Partem – Ordinarily, courts interpret statutory provisions in sync with principles of natural justice on a premise that no statutory authority would violate fundamental rights enshrined in Constitution – When it comes to authorities that are expected to discharge judicial and quasi-judicial functions, rule of audi alteram partem applies with equal force – Reasonableness infuses lifeblood in procedural matters, be it elements of notice, contents of notice, scope of inquiry, material available or an adequate opportunity to rebut such material – All of this is to avoid miscarriage of justice at any stage – This is fluid and subject to adapting to demands of a situation in given facts of a case. (Para 45)

(C) Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Rule 11(IX) – Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Pace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 – Section 29 read with Rules 7, 8 and 9 – Dismissal from services and disqualification from future employment – Allegation of sexual harassment at work place – Fact situation in each case will vary and no set standards or yardstick can be laid down for conducting inquiry in complaints of this nature – However, having regard to serious ramifications with which delinquent employee may be visited at end of inquiry, any discordant note or unreasonable deviation from settled procedures required to be followed, would strike at core of principles of natural justice, notwithstanding final outcome – An inquiry that can culminate into imposition of a major penalty like termination of service of an employee, must doubly conform to a just, fair and reasonable procedure – Undue haste demonstrated by Committee for bringing inquiry to a closure, cannot justify curtailment of right of appellant to a fair hearing – Matters of this nature are sensitive and have to be handled with care – Respondents had received as many as seventeen complaints from students levelling serious allegations of sexual harassment against appellant – But that would not be a ground to give a complete go-by to procedural fairness of inquiry required to be conducted – Impugned Judgment set aside and matter remitted back to Complaints Committee for fresh decision – Elaborate directions issued to ensure safety of women at workplace and expeditious and effective disposal of cases of sexual harassment. (Paras 49, 52, 53, 65, 72, 73 and 77)

Facts of the case:

Challenge has been laid by the appellant to the judgment dated 15th March, 2012, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench, at Goa, dismissing a writ petition, W.P. No. 602 of 2011, preferred by him against an order, Dated 10th May, 2010, passed by the Executive Council of Goa University (Disciplinary Authority) accepting the Report, Dated 05th June, 2009, of the Standing Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Work Place, and imposing upon him, a major penalty of dismissal from services and disqualification from the future employment under Rule 11(IX) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which was duly upheld by Governor and the Chancellor of Goa University, being Appellate Authority, Vide Order dated 19th April, 2011.

Findings of Court:

If the working environment continues to remain hostile, insensitive and unresponsive to the needs of women employees, then Act will remain an empty formality. If authorities/managements/ employers cannot assure them a safe and secure work place, they will fear stepping out of their homes to make a dignified living and exploit their talent and skills to the hilt. It is, therefore, time for Union Government and State Governments to take affirmative action and make sure that the altruistic object behind enacting PoSH Act is achieved in real terms.

Result : Appeal allowed.