Should the enquiry be vitiated if the report is not provided to the accused in a sexual harassment case?

Sexual harassment at workplace cases

The case of Pradeep Jeganathan v. State of Uttar Pradesh is one of the landmark sexual harassment at workplace cases, where it was held that no provision of the report to the accused impairs the ability of the Court to do justice to all the parties concerned. The Court termed it as a violation of principles of Natural Justice as well. 

Facts of the Case 

The petitioner was working as the head of the department in the capacity of Professor of Sociology. On the allegations of sexual harassment made by respondents, an enquiry was conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee. The order of cessation of employment of the petitioner had preceded with the said enquiry. Thus, a writ petition was filed against the impugned dismissal order. 

Decision of the Case 

The case is still pending in Court, as the respondents were asked to file counter-affidavits, and the case was taken under consideration for deliberation over the next case-date. 

Rationale of the ruling 

It is an interesting point to note that the ICC had recommended only the removal of the petitioner from the position of head of the department and to tender written apology to two of the respondents. Instead, the University Administration outright dismissed the accused from employment and asked him to vacate his allotted residence before leaving. This became the basis of the current writ petition. It was contended by the advocate for the petitioner that a detailed enquiry report on the evidence submitted before ICC was given to the petitioner. In other words, the petitioner had no idea whatsoever of how the ICC had reached its conclusions, and the administration had taken those steps. Moreover, the petitioner had not been yet granted the opportunity to cross-examine some of the respondents. This was in violation of principles of natural justice, as the accused had been condemned by the administration without transparency of proceedings. 

The case sheds a light on how authorities may make misuse of powers granted to them, which in turn causes harassment and mental grief to the accused in such cases. The matter could have been easily resolved had the administration not decided to dismiss its employee, declaring him as ‘unfit’ for the job. Instead, if it had just followed the recommendations, there is quite a probability that this case might have been settled amicably.  

To avoid such instances at workplace, it is imperative to sensitise employees about sexual harassment at workplace laws and train the ICC members on conducting the investigation.