LexD.S. GREWAL versus VIMMI JOSHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2008] 17 S.C.R. 864 D.S. GREWAL v. VIMMI JOSHI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7355 of 2008) DECEMBER 17, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Service Law - Termination - Complaint of sexual harassment by principal of Army School against army officer- C Vice Chairman of School Managing Committee - Termination of complainant- Interim order by High Court that delinquent caused sexua/. harassment to complainant and directed Army Authorities to initiate disciplinary action - On appeal held: No complaint committee was cons_tituted - No D mechanism put in place for redressal of complaint by victim - Army Authorities ignored the guidelines laid down in Vishakha's case by Supreme Court as regard disciplinary action, complaint mechanism and complaint.:committee which was to be given effect to in terms of Article 144 - Hence, High Court directed to appoint three members committee E headed by a lady - In case delinquent found guilty, Army Authorities would initiate disciplinary action against him - Guidelines - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 144. Respondent no. 1 was working as the principal of Army Public School. Brigadier DS is the Chairman of the F School Managing Committee while Col. HB is the Vice Chairman. It is alleged that Col. HB used to 111ake advances towards respondent no. 1. She brought the matter to the notice of the Chairman. Respondent No. 1 was asked to give the complaint in writing. Subsequently, G the Managing Committee received two anonymous complaints against respondent no. 1. Respondent no. 1 replied to the allegations made. However, her services were terminated. Respondent challenged the order of termination alleging s'exual harassment by Col. HB. H 864 ·- ~ ;. . .. , D.S. GREWAL v. VIMMI JOSHI & ORS. 865 Meanwhile inquiry was conducted. Respondent no. 1 A participated It was found not to be a case of sexual harassment. Division Bench of High Court held that a clear case of sexual harassment of respondent no. 1 was made out. It directed the Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Chief of Army Staff to take disciplinary action against" 8 the two officers. Hence the present appeal. Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 In terms of the judgment of this Court in *Vishakha and others v State of Rajasthan certain guidelines have been laid down by this Court till an appropriate c \egis\ation is made in this behalf, some of them being- disciplinary action, complaint mechanism and complaints committee. The Legislature too have keeping in mind the guidelines from Vishakha recently drafted the Protection of Women against Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 0 2007. The Bill is to provide 'for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment of women at workplace and formatters connected therewith or incidental thereto'. The draft law provides for consideration of a mandatory committee to hear complaints of sexual harassment. It a!so stipulates the procedures for setting up of these E committees. If the complaint is found to be true, the draft law provides for monetary compensation. It also stipulates a time period for completing the enquiry and for employers to take action against the accused. The Bill has not till yet been enacted by the Parliament. The Bill F is cited only to show that the law makers too have accepted the directions and guidelines which had been laid down by this Court. [Para 19] [874-G-H; 875-A-B] *Vishakha and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 (6) SCC 241, relied on. G 1.2. Respondent No.1 was a working lady. She was working as the Principal of the School. She was drawing 'a salary. It is a public enterprise. She felt humiliated not only by reason of the said letter; according to her, HS also made advances towards her. Therefore, she had a H ,. 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A reasonable ground to believe that her objection, thus, would cause disadvantage to her in connection with her employment or work including her recruitment 01' promotion or creating a hostile working environment. According to her, adverse consequences visited as her 8 services have been terminated. [Para 20] [875-C-D] Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra 1999 (1) sec 759, referred to. 1.3. Before, a disciplinary proceeding is initiated in a case of this nature, a prima facie finding has to be arrived ,.... c at as regards the role of the delinquent. The job of Col. HS was merely to function
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.