In Brief
The respondent, an Area Organizer in the SSB, was accused of sexual harassment by a female employee. After two preliminary inquiries found insufficient evidence, a Central Complaints Committee appointed by the Ministry of Home Affairs conducted a full inquiry and found the charges proved on 10 distinct points of sexual harassment, including unsolicited phone calls, unwanted advances, workplace intimidation, and victimization after the complaint was made. The respondent was subsequently superannuated as DIG with a penalty of withholding 50% of his monthly pension. The High Court set aside this penalty, holding that the Central Complaints Committee had wrongly entertained a supplementary complaint filed after the initial charge, had improperly conducted examination-in-chief, and had made findings based on conjecture. The Supreme Court allowed the Union's appeal, restoring the penalty. The Court held that a second complaint can be entertained if filed promptly; procedural violations do not vitiate proceedings absent prejudice; inquiry committees can question witnesses; and the evidence sufficed to prove sexual harassment.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.