Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajit Kumar, J.
Shailendra Kumar Rai - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. - 6131 of 2025
Decided On : 29-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Siddharth Khare
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ghan Shyam Yadav
A prima facie case of sexual harassment was established based on body shaming comments, justifying the suspension of the petitioner pending further inquiry.
Headnote:(A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 4 and Section 11 - Extraordinary jurisdiction invoked under Article 226 - Suspension order challenged - Internal complaint committee’s constitution issue raised - Proper hearing and opportunity for defense contended - Comments amounting to body shaming considered as sexual harassment - Prima facie case established, suspension justified pending inquiry. (Paras 2, 14, 16, 17)
(B) Constitutional law - Article 226 - Scope and purpose - Suspension not treated as punishment but as a measure to ensure integrity of proceedings. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a District Programme Officer, was suspended for alleged sexual harassment involving comments made to a female colleague. The petitioner argued that the internal complaints committee was improperly constituted and due process was not followed.
Findings of Court:
Suspension upheld, with a direction to allow the petitioner to appeal the findings, and that no disciplinary action shall occur until the appeal is decided.
Issues: Whether the actions constituted sexual harassment, whether proper procedure was followed in the internal complaint committee, and the fairness of the suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the comments made were of a nature that could support a claim of sexual harassment, justifying the suspension as a temporary measure while awaiting detailed inquiry.
Result: Petition dismissed, with directions for subsequent appeal process.
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Shambhavi Nanda, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Ghan Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for respondents and learned Standing Counsel.
2. Petitioner who is posted and working as District Programme Officer, Kushinagar has invoked extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the order of suspension passed against him by the Chief Secretary Child Development and Nutrition, Uttar Pradesh basically on following three grounds:
(i) The words spoken to the aggrieved woman does not amount so sexual harassment in relation to her workplace more especially in the light of the statement of the aggrieved woman herself recorded before the internal complaint committee.
(ii) The internal complaint committee was not duly constituted as mandatorily required under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act, 2013’).
(iii) The detailed procedure required to be followed in consonance with the rules of punishment and appeal rules applicable to the employee was not followed, inasmuch as petitioner was denied opportunity to cross- examine the complainant and still further had no opportunity even to make representation against the findings before the committee itself as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act, 2013.
3. In support of his above arguments learned Senior Advocate has taken the Court through the findings part of the report of the internal committee in which it has come to be returned that calling a woman to his own house and stadium for evening walk and making comments upon her physical body structure and request for scooty riding with her, prove that the delinquent employee was trying to harass her and it was further proved from the written statement of Virendra Nath Verma retired cleark and further recordings of CCTV and further it cannot be ruled out that CCTV footage / recording were not disturbed.
4. According to Shri Khare it was all a sheer doubt expressed in the finding part itself as there was no direct evidence that petitioner ever tried to sexually harass the aggrieved women at any point of time so as to call an for action under the Act, 2013. Shri Khare has also taken the Court through the statement of aggrieved women recorded by the internal complaint committee in which she had stated that the delinquent employee commented upon her being fatty and used suggest her to go for evening walk with him at multiple times and also invited to have meals with him. Shri Khare submitted that a mere statement that the petitioner suggested the aggrieved women to go with him for evening or morning walk or invited over a meal or to suggest her to drive the scooty with him as a pillion rider, is not at all suggestive of any element to constitute sexual harassment within the meaning of the Act. Shri Khare has also taken the Court through the provisions as contained under Section 4 of the Act according to which the internal complaint committee was to be consisted of at least one member from a non-governmental organization or association committed to the cause of women or person familiar with issues relating to sexual harassment as according to him, the committee that was constituted and submitted a report, consisted of only government officials including the chairman, who were five in number. The relevant provision of Section 4 are reproduced hereunder:
“4. (1)…..
(2) The internal Committees shall consist of the following members to be nominated by the employer, namely:
(a) a Presiding Officer who shall be a women employed at a senior level at a workplace from amongst the employees:
Provided that in case a senior level woman employee is not available the Presiding Officer shall be nominated from other offices or administrative units of the workplace referred to in sub-section (
