Natural justice in sexual harassment inquiries requires a fair chance to defend, or dismissal based on them cannot stand.

A sexual harassment inquiry treated as a disciplinary inquiry must still satisfy natural justice and, as far as practicable, follow the prescribed procedure. The employee must receive the material against him, access to complaints and supporting depositions, and a fair chance to respond and defend. Although the absence of formal articles of charge was not fatal on the facts, the inquiry was conducted in a hurried and truncated manner that shortened time, supplied material late, and denied a realistic opportunity to cross-examine and complete the defence. The process was therefore held unfair, the dismissal based on it could not stand, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration from the stage indicated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sexual harassment inquiry, treated as the disciplinary inquiry, satisfied the requirement of natural justice and the statutory mandate that it be conducted as far as practicable in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and whether the dismissal order based on that process could stand.

Analysis: The inquiry under the service rules and the governing sexual harassment regime was required to conform to procedural fairness, even though strict compliance with every step of the ordinary disciplinary process was not insisted upon. The accused employee had to be informed of the material against him, given access to the complaints and supporting depositions, and afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond and defend. While the absence of formal articles of charge was not, by itself, fatal on the facts, the manner in which the proceedings were accelerated after May 2009 was found to be unfair: the committee repeatedly shortened time, forwarded additional material at short notice, and effectively denied a realistic opportunity to cross-examine and complete the defence. That approach defeated the core of audi alteram partem and fell short of the standard of fairness required even in a sensitive sexual harassment inquiry.

Conclusion: The inquiry process was vitiated by breach of natural justice and by non-adherence to the statutory requirement of proceeding as far as practicable in accordance with the rules. The dismissal founded on that inquiry could not be sustained and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration from the stage indicated by the Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In a disciplinary inquiry for sexual harassment, the procedure may be adapted to the situation, but it cannot be so hurried or truncated as to deny a meaningful opportunity of defence; a decision based on such an unfair process is liable to be set aside.

---