Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16566
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R Raghunandan Rao, T.C.D. Sekhar, JJ
N Elli Ramji Prasad – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 18136/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sricharan Teleprolu
For the Respondents: A Jayanthi
Non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, particularly regarding conciliation, inquiry by Internal Complaints Committee, and serving of the report, vitiates disciplinary proceedings. Material contradictions in the sole witness's testimony render the charge unproved.
Headnote:(A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 10, Section 13, Section 18 - Procedure for inquiry - Conciliation mandatory under Section 10 before any inquiry - Inquiry to be conducted by Internal Complaints Committee, not by an external enquiry officer - Copy of report of Internal Complaints Committee must be served upon the delinquent employee - Appeal lies under Section 18 against the report - Disciplinary authority cannot initiate a fresh inquiry after receiving the report - Non-compliance of the statutory procedure vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 8, 9)
(B) Evidence - Credibility of complainant - Discrepancies in statements made at different stages - Where sole witness is the complainant, material contradictions and variations in her version raise serious doubts as to the veracity of the complaint - In the absence of corroborative evidence, the charge of sexual harassment cannot be sustained. (Paras 9-21)
(C) Service Law - Dismissal from service - Reinstatement - Where the disciplinary proceedings are vitiated for non-compliance of statutory procedure and the charges are not proved, the court can direct reinstatement with consequential benefits but without back wages.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an employee of the District Court, was dismissed from service for allegedly outraging the modesty of a female employee. The incident allegedly occurred on 01.10.2017. The disciplinary authority, after an enquiry conducted by an enquiry officer, passed the dismissal order on 22.06.2021. The appellate authority affirmed the dismissal on 18.04.2023. The petitioner challenged both orders by way of a writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the procedure under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 was not followed: no conciliation was attempted, the inquiry was not conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee, the report of the committee was not furnished to the petitioner, and the disciplinary authority initiated a fresh inquiry which was impermissible. Additionally, the court found material discrepancies in the complainant's statements regarding the time of the incident (3:25 pm vs 11:30 am), the presence of a witness (Sri V. Satyanarayana), the complainant's phone call to the superintendent (same day vs next day), and her visit to the police station (with or without the advocate). In the absence of any eye witness and in view of these contradictions, the court held that the charge was not proved.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated for non-compliance of Section 10, Section 13 and Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013; Whether the complaint of sexual harassment was credible in view of the contradictions in the statements of the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that strict adherence to the procedure under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 is mandatory and non-compliance vitiates the entire proceedings. Further, the court, while normally refraining from re-appreciating evidence, can examine the credibility of the complainant where material discrepancies exist; if the sole witness's testimony is unreliable, the charge cannot be sustained.
Result: Writ Petition allowed. Impugned orders dated 22.06.2021 and 18.04.2023 set aside. Petitioner directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits except back wages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural requirements for disciplinary proceedings under posh act (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's defense and loan allegations (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. contentions of parties regarding procedure and credibility (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. defects in procedure under act 14 of 2013 (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. analysis of discrepancies in complainant's statements (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 6. standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. writ allowed due to procedural violations and lack of credible evidence (Para 22 , 23) |
The Court made the following Order:
(per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao)
The petitioner herein had been appointed as an attender, on 06.07.1995, in the Junior Civil Judge, Mummadivaram, on compassionate basis. He had been promoted as Field Assistant and was working in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, at the time of his dismissal from service. A complainant, working as a lady attender on outsourcing basis, in the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Kothapeta, had filed a complaint against the petitioner, stating that, on 01.10.2017, the petitioner had outraged the modesty of the complainant, while she was on duty, in the Court premises at Kothapeta. The specific complaint was that the petitioner had caught hold of the hand of the complainant and had forcibly pulled the saree of the complainant while catching hold of her hair and breast and thereby outraged the modesty of the complainant. On the basis of this complaint, which had been filed on 04.10.2017, the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, had forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Kothapeta Police Station as well as the Chairman-cum-Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. The complaint received by the Station House Officer, Kothapet, was registered as Crime No.216 of 2017 and is now pending before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, as C.C.No.493 of 2017.
2. The Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, after receiving the complaint as well as the communication of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, had forwarded the same to the Member, Committee of Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment against Women Staff-cum-I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, for further action. The I Additional District Judge directed the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate to record the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, if any, on the incident. The III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, recorded the statement of the complainant and had forward the same to the I Additional District Judge, under cover of letter, dated 09.07.2019. The I Additional District Judge then filed a report before the Principal District Judge on 06.08.2019. on the basis of this report, the Principal District Judge by an Order, dated 14.08.2019, proposed an enquiry against the petitioner in terms of Rule-20 of the APCS (C.C.A) Rules 1991 [for short “the Rules, 1991”]. In these proceedings, six charges were set out against the petitioner.
3. The petitioner filed his written statement of defense on 16.10.2019 denying all the said allegations. The case of the petitioner was that the complainant had earlier worked as an attender in Mandal Legal Service Authority at Amalapuram, when he was also working in Amalapuram. He states that she had obtained a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner as she was in deep financial crisis and was pressurized by her creditors. The petitioner had, inturn, obtained a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from HDFC bank, Amalapuram and had given the amount to her. Later, the complainant came to be transferred from Amalapuram to Rampachodavaram and subsequently to Kothapeta. As the complainant was not returning the money, the petitioner had obtained a promissory note from her in February-2017 and had gone to Kothapet on 01.10.2017 to collect part payment of the loan which he had extended. However, she did not make any payment on 0
