Compulsory retirement for sexual harassment

With sexual harassment charges in the judiciary on the increase, the Supreme Court has sent warning signals to the judicial officers and staff of various High courts that such charges made by women employees would be firmly dealt with.

A Bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and M.Y. Eqbal has restored the order of compulsory retirement of a Deputy Registrar of Madras High Court on sexual harassment charges leveled by a personal assistant to judges. The High Court in its judicial side had quashed the order of compulsory retirement imposed by the then Chief Justice in his administrative capacity as disciplinary authority.

The Bench pointed out that the then Chief Justice of the High Court in the facts of the case thought it proper to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement on the delinquent Deputy Registrar K. Muthukumarasamy in October 2002 after a proper enquiry proving his guilt.

Allowing the appeals filed by the High Court and the complainant against the verdict quashing the compulsory retirement, the Bench said “A reading of the very elaborate order of the High Court would seem to indicate that the High Court thought it proper to reverse the penalty imposed on the ground that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority (Chief Justices) leading to the impugned order of punishment were highly improbable and unacceptable.”

The Bench said “We have read and considered the elaborate order passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court, acting as the Disciplinary Authority, accepting the findings of the enquiry and imposing the punishment in question. The chief Justice in his order has discussed the evidence of all the six witnesses examined in support of the charges and has categorically held that the charges stood proved.”

The Bench said the appellate power of the High Courts had to be exercised only on a careful appraisal of the facts of a given case. Care must be taken not to act as a Court of Appeal or in review of the decisions of the fact finding authority. In this case, the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in coming to the impugned findings with regard to the culpability of the delinquent and in reversing the order of Compulsory Retirement.

“We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court; allow both the appeals and restore the order of the Disciplinary authority, namely, the compulsory retirement of the respondent – delinquent employee with effect from the date on which it was made”, the Bench said.

Print Page