ARTICLES

CIVIL APPEAL No. 2482 of 2014

 In the matter of Aureliano Fernandes

vs

State of Goa and Ors.

Order date – May 12, 2023

1. Facts of the case:

• Aureliano Fernandes was appointed as a Lecturer at Goa University in the year 1996 hence was deemed to be a government officer. Several complaints were submitted by girls against Aureliano Fernandes alleging physical harassment and to enquire into the matter a Complaint Committee (“Committee”) was formed by the University.
• The Committee served a notice to Aureliano Fernandes to appear and provide his submissions as to why no action shall be initiated against him. The Committee met 18 times during the span of 39 days and various submissions were exchanged between the Committee and Aureliano Fernandes wherein in one of the letters Aureliano Fernandes had also requested additional time to submit his reply through his attorney.
• The Committee rejected his request to appoint an attorney and proceed further with the inquiry. Since Aureliano Fernandes failed to appear in person the Committee submitted its report to the Executive Council recommending for dismissal of service of Aureliano Fernandes and declaring him as disqualified from future employment under Rule 11(IX) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964 (“CCS Rules”).
• While the Executive Council was conducting the inquiry, the University pleaded that the Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry authority and the report submitted by the Committee shall be taken on record. The Executive Council accepted the plea of the University and dismissed Aureliano Fernandes from service and declared him as disqualified from future employment.
• Aggrieved by the order passed by the Executive Council, Aureliano Fernandes filed an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court. The High Court upheld the decision of the Executive Council and dismissed the appeal filed by Aureliano Fernandes. Hence, aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court, Aureliano Fernandes has filed the present Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

1. Issues:

1. Whether the Complaints Committee will be deemed to be an inquiry authority for the purposes of the CCS Rules?
2. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed by the Committee and the Council while conducting an inquiry/ trial?

• Relevant Provisions:

Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules stipulates the procedure for imposing major penalties and is extracted below

(1) No order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 shall be made except after an inquiry held, as far as may be, in the manner provided in this rule and rule 15, or in the manner provided by the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (37 of 1850), where such inquiry is held under that Act.

(2) Whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government servant, it may itself inquire into, or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the truth thereof.

Provided that where there is a complaint of sexual harassment within the meaning of rule 3 C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, the Complaints Committee established in each Ministry or Department or Office for inquiring into such complaints, shall be deemed- to be the inquiring authority appointed by the disciplinary authority for the purpose of these rules and the Complaints Committee shall hold, if separate procedure has not been prescribed for the Complaints Committee for holding the inquiry into the complaints of sexual harassment, the inquiry as far as practicable in accordance with the procedure laid down in these rules.”

1. Judgement:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while allowing the appeal filed by Aureliano Fernandes, held that the Complaints Committee appointed by the University would be deemed to be an inquiry officer under CAA Rules. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Complaints Committee failed to follow the procedure laid down under CAA Rules for conducting an inquiry and has also failed to follow the principles of natural justice. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Complaints Committee to complete the inquiry within three months by following the due procedure warranted under law.

1. Epilogue:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court while passing its order in the relevant matter also pressed upon failure of the State functionaries, public authorities, private undertakings, organizations and institutions to implement the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 PoSH Act in letter and spirit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed the Union Government and the State Governments to take affirmative action and make sure that the altruistic object behind enacting the PoSH Act is achieved in real terms.

1. Directions:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also issued directions to the UoI/ SGs/ UTs/ Ministries, Departments, Government organizations, authorities, Public Sector Undertakings, institutions, bodies, etc. to comply with the requirements of the PoSH Act, frame a procedure for submission of complaints online amongst various other directions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also directed UoI/ SGs/ UTs to file their affidavits within 8 weeks for reporting compliances.

Reference:

1. Aureliano Fernandes vs State of Goa and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014
2. Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 241
3. Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
4. Rule 11(IX) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1964

By CS Sakshi Jain, Senior Associate- Corporate and Commercial Laws

Note: This article is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship and is intended for general information purposes only. You are advised not to act or rely on any information in this document and consult a professional legal services provider before acting on the same.