Internal Complaints Committee report on sexual harassment at workplace can’t form sole basis for dismissal from service: Karnataka HC

feature-top

Read Judgement: Dr. Arabi U vs. Registrar, Mangalore University

Pankaj Bajpai

Bengaluru, August 9, 2021: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a report by the internal complaints committee, in cases of sexual harassment at the workplace, can serve as a fact-finding report but cannot be the sole basis for dismissal. 

A Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that a report by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) formed under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, in the event of such a complaint cannot impose the penalty of dismissal on the alleged offender without holding any inquiry under the Service Rules of the University.

The judgment came to be passed pursuant to a petition filed by a 60-year-old professor in the Department of Economics, Mangalore University, against whom sexual allegations were leveled. 

A student had lodged a complaint with the State and the National Commission for Women against the petitioner when he was functioning as chairman of the University’s Department of Economics in April, 2018. 

The petitioner professor responded to the complaint. However, dissatisfied, the university placed the complaint for enquiry before the ICC constituted under the Act, who found him guilty of allegations based on which a show cause notice was issued by the university to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service.

The petitioner challenged the show cause notice levying penalty of dismissal from service based on the report of the ICC, without holding any inquiry as required under the University’s Service Rules. 

Opposing the same, the Respondent University submitted that the report of the Committee would itself be sufficient to impose penalty against an employee who was accused and found guilty of sexual harassment. 

Justice Nagaprasanna observed that being a post-decisional hearing, the decision to impose penalty of dismissal was clearly an act without jurisdiction, as no inquiry as contemplated under the Service Rules was ever initiated against the petitioner.

The Judge added that the petitioner did have a right to approach the High Court at this juncture to stall the fait from becoming an accompli. 

The Supreme Court’s three judge bench decision in Dr. Vijayakumaran C.p.v v. Central University Of Kerala & Ors., and Ruchika Singh Chhabra v. M/s. Air France India & Another, would cover the issue at hand whereby considering the Regulations of the Central University of Kerala, Regulations of University Grants Commission and the Act, the Apex Court had held that such report of the Committee ought to be taken to its logical end not only by initiating departmental or regular inquiry as per the Service Rules, but also followed by other actions in law, said Justice Nagaprasanna. 

Further, the High Court also found that the Apex Court in case of Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V had clearly ruled that the order of termination being passed on the basis of the Internal Complaints Committee report was illegal and sets aside the order of termination and directs reinstatement. 

With these observations, the High Court allowed the plea of the petitioner and quashed the show cause notice dismissing the petitioner.

Add a Comment