TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Central Complaints Committee could consider the second complaint dated 18.09.2012 in the disciplinary inquiry; (ii) Whether the Central Complaints Committee was vitiated by putting questions to witnesses and by conducting the examination-in-chief; (iii) Whether the findings were based on no evidence or mere conjectures and surmises; (iv) Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the penalty.
Issue (i): Whether the Central Complaints Committee could consider the second complaint dated 18.09.2012 in the disciplinary inquiry.
Analysis: The complaint mechanism under the standing order enabled an aggrieved person to approach the Complaints Committee and did not prohibit later or additional complaints. The second complaint was filed promptly after the Committee was constituted and before the first hearing. In disciplinary proceedings, the material need only have probative value, and the proper inquiry is whether any real prejudice was caused.
Conclusion: The Committee was entitled to consider the second complaint and no prejudice was shown to have been caused to the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the Central Complaints Committee was vitiated by putting questions to witnesses and by conducting the examination-in-chief.
Analysis: Under the disciplinary scheme, the Complaints Committee functions as the inquiring authority. The standing order and the inquiry framework permit a fair, thorough, and sensitive procedure, including controlled questioning of witnesses. The Committee was not required to remain a passive recorder, and its questioning of witnesses did not by itself offend natural justice.
Conclusion: The inquiry was not vitiated on that ground.
Issue (iii): Whether the findings were based on no evidence or mere conjectures and surmises.
Analysis: Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited to the fairness of the process and whether there is some tangible evidence supporting the finding. The record contained oral evidence from several witnesses supporting the allegations of unwelcome conduct, repeated calls, visits, and work-related victimisation. The absence of call records on one aspect did not convert the entire case into one of no evidence.
Conclusion: The findings were supported by evidence and were not vitiated as being based on conjecture or surmise.
Issue (iv): Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the penalty.
Analysis: The High Court interfered on technical grounds without applying the governing principles of prejudice, the limited scope of judicial review, and the distinction between sufficiency and existence of evidence. The disciplinary finding of proved sexual harassment was sustainable on the record and the penalty imposed could not be invalidated on the grounds accepted by the High Court.
Conclusion: The High Court erred in law in setting aside the penalty.
Final Conclusion: The disciplinary action was restored and the challenge to it failed; the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the penalty against the respondent stood revived.
Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary inquiries on sexual harassment, courts interfere only for procedural unfairness causing prejudice or where findings are unsupported by any evidence, and a complaints committee may consider timely additional complaints and actively question witnesses if the procedure remains fair.
TaxTMI 
