The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court has quashed the Uttar Pradesh government’s order of suspension of two women officials of the State Tax Department who were members of an internal complaints committee constituted to investigate a complaint of sexual harassment of a woman employee by an officer.
The committee’s members were suspended for exonerating the alleged perpetrator after the complainant raised doubts over the proceedings and the decision.
Separate writ petitions were filed by the two officials, challenging their suspension orders issued in August last year.
In an April 20 order, a single bench of Justice Manish Mathur observed, “While this court lauds stand of State Government and there can be no gainsaying that aspect of sexual harassment in the workplace is required to be nipped in the bud by preventive and corrective steps being taken, at the same time it is also essential that the proceedings of the Internal Complaints or the Local Committee should be fair, transparent and without any aspect of fear or favour in the minds of the members of a committee.”
Maintaining that the “internal complaints or local committee” exercises quasi-judicial powers and is expected to make its recommendations in a free, fair and impartial manner placing reliance on evidence, the bench said, “…although departmental proceedings can be initiated against an authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial powers but there should be at least a prima facie satisfaction by the disciplinary authority before proceeding departmentally that the allegations levelled are not with regard to views taken by such an authority but is in fact based on any extraneous motive.”
It added, “A prima facie satisfaction is imperative for the free, fair and impartial decision by the quasi-judicial authority particularly to ensure that such a quasi-judicial authority does not have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them to be proceeded against departmentally in case their recommendations do not find favour with the authorities.”
On July 27 last year, a woman official of the State Tax Department filed a complaint, alleging sexual harassment by an officer.
Story continues below this ad
The internal complaints committee was constituted the next day, and the joint commissioner (establishment) directed the members to submit their report.
Proceedings under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, or (POSH Act) were initiated and statements of the complainant, the alleged perpetrator and other witnesses were recorded and the committee submitted its report on July 31, exonerating the officer concerned from charges of sexual harassment.
However, in the first week of August, the state government ordered suspension of the officer facing sexual harassment charges as well the two members of the probe committee.
The petitioners submitted in the court that the report submitted by the internal complaints committee was only “recommendatory” in nature and could be rejected by the head of department.
Story continues below this ad
“There is no specific or even prima facie satisfaction recorded that any deliberate attempt was made by the entire committee for absolving the officer facing the charges,” they contended in their submission.
They further submitted that “initiation of departmental inquiry sets a very dangerous precedent since it may have the consequence of such committees being compelled to submit a tailor-made report as per wishes of the employer instead of an impartial one”.
The state government refuted their submissions stating the complainant faced multiple episodes of sexual harassment by the officer concerned after her promotion February last year.
The government counsel also said the joint commissioner (executive) had submitted before the committee, and “unequivocally accepted the fact that the complainant had earlier as well reported her harassment by the officer”. The committee exonerated the officer ignoring the testimony and “instead took into account the testimony of irrelevant witnesses”, the counsel added.
Story continues below this ad
The complainant also presented an audio recording of the proceedings of the committee and apprehended an “incorrect recommendation judging by the hostile conduct of the committee members”, he said.
The recommendation for suspension of the committee members was made “taking the true version of the proceedings of committee as available in the audio”, the counsel further said.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Mathur stated in his order, “It is evident that orders have been passed in a very cursory manner without forming any prima facie satisfaction that suspension is being resorted to not with regard to the decision but with regard to the conduct of the members of the committee.”
“The court reaches a conclusion that the orders of suspension have not made any differentiation between the correctness or legality of the decision vis-a-vis conduct of the petitioners in discharge of their duty as members of the committee. The order is clearly cursory in nature and does not indicate any application of mind,” the order read.
Story continues below this ad
Quashing the suspension orders of the two petitioners, the bench granted “liberty to authority to pass orders afresh, if required, but only in accordance with observations and directions made by the court”.
