AURELIANO FERNANDES versus STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 7 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 12-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
772
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 7 S.C.R.
   [2023] 7 S.C.R. 772
772
AURELIANO FERNANDES
v.
STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014)
MAY 12, 2023
[A. S. BOPANNA AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1965 – r. 11(IX), r. 14(2) – Central Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1964 – r. 3C – Allegation of sexual harassment at work place
– Defying the principles of natural justice – Appellant was appointed
by the respondent no.2-Goa University – Appellant was accused of
sexual harassment by several girl students – Appellant was served
with notice to explain charges levelled against him – Inquiry
proceedings took place thereafter, in the month of May 2009, when
12 hearings, most of them back to back, were conducted by the
Committee – Appellant was unable to appear due to health reasons,
however, he had sought extension of time, which was denied –
Proceedings proceeded ex-parte and submitted its report establishing
sexual harassment by the appellant – Committee recommended his
termination from service – The Executive Council (EC) accepted
the report submitted by the Committee and the appellant was placed
under suspension with immediate effect – EC proposed to conduct
an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules – However,
appellant was informed that in the light of an order passed by the
Supreme Court in Medha Kotwal’s case, the report of the Complaints
Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace shall be deemed to be an Inquiry Report under the CCS
(CCA) Rules which shall be binding on the disciplinary authority
for initiating disciplinary action against the government servant –
Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appellant from service –
Appellant filed writ petition before the High Court, which was
dismissed – On appeal, held: It is an admitted position that the
inquiry proceedings were aborted at the initial stage itself and it
was the Report of the Committee submitted earlier, that was acted
upon by the EC – The Committee itself was unclear as to the scope
of its inquiry, the appellant cannot be blamed for harbouring an
impression that the remit of the Committee was confined to fact
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
773
finding alone and it was not discharging the functions of a
disciplinary committee, as contemplated under the service Rules –
It is also noteworthy that the time span prescribed under the CCS
(CCA) Rules for concluding an inquiry is ordinarily within a period
of six months from the date of receipt of the order of appointment –
In the instant case, the entire process was wrapped up in flat 39
days – This shows the tearing hurry in which the Committee was to
submit its Report – The undue haste demonstrated by the Committee
for bringing the inquiry to a closure, cannot justify curtailment of
the right of the appellant to a fair hearing – When the legitimacy of
the decision taken is dependent on the fairness of the process and
the process adopted itself became questionable, then the decision
arrived at cannot withstand judicial scrutiny and is wide open to
interference – The discretion vested in the Committee for conducting
the inquiry has been exercised improperly, defying the principles of
natural justice – As a consequence thereof, the impugned judgment
upholding the decision taken by the EC of terminating the services
of the appellant, duly endorsed by the Appellate Authority cannot
be sustained.
Constitution of India – Art. 309 – Conditions of service –
Scope – Art. 309 does not by itself provide for recruitment or
conditions of service of Government servants, but confers this power
on the appropriate legislature to make the laws and on the President
and the Government of a State to make rules relating to these matters
– However, any Act or Rule that violates the rights guaranteed to a
government servant under Article 311, would be void – Similarly,
such an Act or Rule would be treated as void if it violates any of the
fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution.
Constitution of India – Art. 310 – Doctrine of Pleasure –
Article 310 embodies the “Doctrine of Pleasure” and in the context
of Government servants, relates to their tenure of service – The
origin of Government servants may be contractual, once appointed
to the post or office, they acquire a status and their rights and
obligations are no longer determined by the consent of both the
parties, but are governed by the Statute or Statut

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.