LexAPPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL versus AK. CHOPRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
><-
APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL
A
•
v.
AK. CHOPRA
JANUARY 20, 1999
[DR. AS. ANAND CJ. AND V.N. KHARE, J.)
B
,.
Service Law:
Misconduct-Sexual harassment--Of female employee~At place of
work-Approach of cowt-ln such case~Held, Depmtmental disciplina1y
proceedings should not be dealt with like a criminal t1ial--Cowts are required c
to examine the broader probability of a case and 11ot get swayed by insig-
nifica11t discrepancies or 11a1row tech11icalitie~T71ey must examine the e11tire
material to detem1i11e the genui11e11ess of the complai11t-Victim's statement
must be appreciated i11 the background of the e11tire cas~Such cases are
required to be dealt with great sensitivity-Sympathy or mercy towards the D
delinquent, wholly misplaced.
_..
Misco11duct-Sexual harassment-At place of work-Meaning of-Su-
pelior Officer harassed, pestered and subjected his junior female employee by
a co11duct which was agai11st moral sanctions a11d did not withsta11d test of
decency and modesty which projected unwelcome sexual advances-Held,
E
Sexual harassment includes any action or gesture which, whether directly or
by implication, aims at or has the tendency to outrage the modesty of a female
employe~"Molestation" or ''physical assault" cannot be detennined with
reference to dictio11ary mea11i1115T71e objectio11able behaviour; does 1101 cease
to be outrageous, eve11 if there is 110 actual assault or touch by the deli11que11t
F
..,,
superior officer---Objectio11able oveltllres with sexual oveltones ·sufficient .
~
Departme11tal e11quiry-Punishme11t-Qua11tum-Judicial review
of-Sexual harassme11t-Cliarge of-Proved-Deli11que11t officer's removal
from se1vice upheld by appellate authority-Neither Single Judge 11or Division
Be11ch of High Cowt found fault with the conduct of enquiry-lloweve1; High G
Coult reinstated the delinquent officer in se1vice by holding that he had not
-\'
"actually molested" the female employee but only "tried to molest" her and
had "not managed" to make physical contact with her-Held,s In such
circumstance, High Coult e1Ted in interfe1ing with the punishment-What
punishment is to be imposed is within the jurisdiction of the competent
authority and does not warrant interference by High Cowt lightly--Reduction H
117
118
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 1 S.C.K
A of punishment in a case like this is bound to have a demoralising effect on
women employees and is a retrograde step-ln the facts of the case, punish-
ment of removal from service is commensurate with the acts of the
delinquent's unbecoming of good conduct and behaviour expected from a
Superior offecer--Delinquent's repentance and unqualified ap'llogy at the final
stage of appeal does not call for any sympathy or mercy.
B
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 15 and 21.
Sexual harassment-Of female employees-At place of work-Held:
Sexual harassment is a f onn of sex discrimination projected through unwel-
C come sexual advances, requests for sexual favours and other verbal or physical
conduct with sexual overtones when submission/rejection of which affects the
employment or work perf onnance of the female employee or has the effect of
creating an intimidating or hostile environment for her-Such incidents violate
her fundamental right to gender equality and right to the life and liberty Such
D sexual harassment is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female
and there can be no compromise with such violations-Further, International
Instruments cast an obligation on India to gender sensitise its laws and its
Courts are obliged to follow such International Conventions-ILO Seminar
at Manila (1993)-'--convention on the Elimination of All Fonns of Dis-
crimination Against Women, 1979 ("CEDAW')-Beijing Declaration on
E Women International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Article 226--Departmental enquiry-Findings of fact-interference
with-By High Court-Held, High Court should not nonnally interfere unless
the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse and/or legally un-
F tenable-High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority and substitute its
own conclusion regarding the guilt of the delinquent-Adequacy or inade-
quacy of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High ·Court-As regards
punishment/penalty imposed, High Court should not nonnally interfere unless
it is impennissible or shocks its conscience-fn the circumstance of the case,
High Court . e"ed in intExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.