Mandatory inquiry safeguards in sexual harassment cases are essential before stigmatic punishment or compulsory retirement can be imposed.

Mandatory safeguards under workplace sexual harassment law and the applicable service rules must be followed before imposing stigmatic punishment. The delinquent was not supplied the complaint or relied-on materials, no charge memo was issued, no independent departmental enquiry was held, and the enquiry report was not furnished before punishment; the action was therefore invalid and unsustainable. Proceedings were also defective because the complaint was raised after delay without a recorded basis for condonation, and the Internal Complaints Committee had commenced action before any valid written complaint by the aggrieved woman, making the initiation legally unsustainable. A regular service inquiry was required before compulsory retirement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the enquiry and punishment imposed on the professor were vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory procedure under the sexual harassment law and the applicable service rules. (ii) Whether the proceedings were unsustainable because the complaint was beyond limitation and the Internal Complaints Committee was constituted without a valid written complaint by the aggrieved woman.

Issue (i): Whether the enquiry and punishment imposed on the professor were vitiated for non-compliance with the statutory procedure under the sexual harassment law and the applicable service rules.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the complaint to be dealt with in the manner prescribed by the workplace harassment law and the service rules governing the delinquent. The delinquent was not furnished with the complaint, was not given the CD relied on in the enquiry, no charge memo was issued, no independent departmental enquiry was held, and the enquiry report was not furnished before punishment. The disciplinary action was thus imposed solely on the basis of the Internal Complaints Committee report without the procedural safeguards mandated by the statute and the service regime. Such action also offended the requirement of a regular inquiry before imposing a stigmatic punishment.

Conclusion: The enquiry and the punishment were held to be invalid and unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceedings were unsustainable because the complaint was beyond limitation and the Internal Complaints Committee was constituted without a valid written complaint by the aggrieved woman.

Analysis: The complaint was dated several months after the alleged incident, and no satisfactory basis was recorded for entertaining it beyond the prescribed period. The record also showed that the committee had already commenced proceedings before the complaint was received, which meant that the statutory requirement of a written complaint preceding action was not satisfied. The initiation of proceedings was therefore treated as legally defective.

Conclusion: The initiation of the proceedings was held to be unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary action could not stand because the mandatory safeguards under the workplace harassment law were not followed and no independent service inquiry was held before imposing compulsory retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where allegations of sexual harassment are to be proceeded with under the workplace harassment law, the statutory complaint procedure, opportunity of defence, supply of relevant material, consideration of limitation, and a regular inquiry under the applicable service rules are mandatory before imposing a stigmatic punishment.

---