Introduction

The petitioner is X, a Junior Assistant with Andhra Pradesh Special Police (APSP), Kurnool, who sought through a writ petition to quash disciplinary action in the nature of removal from service. The dismissal was due to acts of sexual misconduct and socially unethical conduct in relation to a woman worker. The petitioner challenged the decision of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority and sought a judicial review of the disciplinary action proceeding on the grounds that the enquiry was not conducted as per the substantive rules particularly Vishaka Guidelines.

Facts of the case

The petitioner was alleged to have engaged in various acts of misconduct. Among them being sexual harassment of a female employee. The offenses included physically contacting the complainant, pursuing her, and making the workplace hostile through trying to change her attitude and interfere with her work when she was at her job. These charges were proven by the enquiry conducted under Rule 20 of the A. P. Civil Service Rules, 1991, through eyewitnesses and documentary evidence.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner challenged the disciplinary action on the following grounds:

•  He contended that the enquiry ought to have been made by a complaints committee in compliance with Rule 3D of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (Conduct) Rules of the regular enquiry officer.
•  He asserted that the disciplinary process was unfair because it was contrary to the principles of natural justice.
•  He also argued that the degree of punishment of removal from service was out of proportion equal to the charges made against him and had been arrived at with assumptions and not evidence.
•  Drawing from the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) the petitioner highlighted the fact that findings have to be anchored on admissible evidence.

Respondent’s Argument

The Respondents, representing the disciplinary authority, defended the enquiry and the punishment by arguing:

•  That the enquiry was conducted according to all the correct procedures and the principles of natural justice were observed in the process.
•  The charges were backed by prosecution witnesses, more so the eyewitnesses.
•  The misconduct was severe especially bearing in mind that the petitioner had a track record of the following six cases of misconduct within his years of service of eighteen years.
•  The petitioner had done this against the provisions of the Vishaka Guidelines that affords women the protection from sexual harassment at the workplace.
• The Respondents have also pointed out legal authorities like Pravin Kumar and B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) in which the respondents have suggested that the court’s power of judicial review is confined to annulment of sectarian decision-making process and not the sectarian decision.

Court’s Observation

The court made several key observations in its review of the case: The court made several key observations in its review of the case:

1. Enquiry Procedure: The court held that the enquiry has been made under the provisions of A. P Civil Service Rules and Principals of natural Justice. There were non-procedural infractions or self-inequity shown. The petitioner also wanted to have an enquiry conducted by a complaints committee, which was dismissed since he did not include the issue in any of the previous stages of the proceeding.

2. Evidence and Findings: The court emphasized that conclusions made by the enquiry officer were supported by reasonable evidence in the form of testimonies from eyewitnesses to the petitioner’s wrong doings. The petitioner also sought to rely on the case of Roop Singh Negi v Punjab National Bank which the court dismissed on the premise that in this case the findings were proven based on facts and not on presumption.

3. Judicial Review: The court re-emphasized the fact that its duty in judicial review is confined to scrutinizing the rationality of the working of the decision-making process and lawfulness of the decision. It does not act as the appellate body to revisit substantial evidence and to replace its decision with the decision of the disciplinary authority. The court stated that it will step in only if there was procedural irregularity, bias or patent injustice of which the above case was bereft of.

4. Punishment: The Court held that the misconduct was severe having concerned sexual harassment that infringed the complainant’s right of a safe working environment and dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This is according to the court; the petitioner has a history of misconduct, which has not been rectified although the petitioner has been warned by other senior members.

Some of the respondents viewed removal from service as just, reasonable, and adequate, in relation to the charges being leveled against the suspects. The authority of the case depends upon Union of India v. Sunil Kumar (2023) where it was decided that the courts should not ordinarily interfere with disciplinary punishment unless the punishment awarded is shown to be ‘shockingly disproportionate’.

Court’s Judgement

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:

1.  The enquiry and disciplinary process was legal without the parties being subject to natural justice or procedural fairness.
2. The evidence of the inquiry officer was well grounded, and the petitioner did not offer any proof of the violation of any procedural law.
3.  This meant that the type of punishment of removal from service corresponded with the gravity of the charges especially in view of the delinquent’s past record.
4.  It could not be intervened by the court of law as the disciplinary process was just and the punishment was neither excessive nor unjustified.

Conclusion

The court agreed to the decision by the disciplinary authority to discharge the petitioner from service and dismissed all the averments made by the petitioner. The punishment of removal from service was considered proper, and to the court there was no rational for the disciplinary authority not to make the decision.

– Credits: By Anaida Khan Pursuing 5th year of BALLB (Hons.) from Dharmashashtra National Law University, Jabalpur