Constitution of ICC under PoSH Act, 2013- Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014

AURELIANO FERNANDES .                                                                                                                                                                                                         … APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS                                                                                                                                                                                            …. RESPONDENTS

I N D E X

A. Scope of the Appeal 1

B. Sequence of Events 1-8

(a) Proceedings before the First Committee

1-6 (b) Proceedings before the Executive Council 6-8

C. Decision of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority 8-9

D. Decision of the High Court 9-10

E. Arguments advanced by counsel for the parties 10-16

(a) Counsel for the appellant 10-12

(b) Counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3 12-16

F. The TRIAD: Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India 16-19

(a) Article 309: Conditions of Service 17

(b) Article 310 : Doctrine of Pleasure 18

(c) Article 311 : A Manifestation of the Principles of Natural Justice 19

G. Article 14 : Bedrock of the Principles of Natural Justice 20-21

H. The Twin Anchors : Nemo Judex In Cause Sua and Audi Alterem Partem 21-26

I. Fair Action and Impartiality in Service Jurisprudence 26-29

J. The Statutory Regime 29-31

(a) Goa University Statute 29

(b) CCS (CCA) Rules 29-30

(c) Pragmatic Application of the “As far as is practicable” Rule 30-31

K. Journey from “Vishaka” Case to the Posh Act 31-38

(a) Vishaka Guidelines: Filling in the vacuum 31-33

(b) Medha Kotwal Lele’s case : Follow up through continuing mandamus 33-36

(c) Enactment of the Posh Act and Rules 36-37

(d) Breathing Reasonableness into the Procedural Regime 37-38

L. Analysis and Discussion 38-49

(a) Scope of interference by the High Court in Judicial Review 39-40

(b) Extent of Adherence to the “as far as practicable” norm 40-42

(c) The Committee’s Understanding of its mandate 42-44

(d) Whirlwind Proceedings 44-47

(e) How did the Executive Council Falter? 47-49

M. Conclusion 49-52

N. Epilogue 53-55

O. Directions 55-59 ****

J U D G E M E N T

HIMA KOHLI, J.

A. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL 1.

1. A challenge has been laid by the appellant to the judgment dated 15th March, 2012, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench, at Goa, dismissing a writ petition1 preferred by him against an order2 passed by the Executive Council3 of Goa University (Disciplinary Authority) accepting the Report4 of the Standing Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Work Place5 and imposing upon him, a major penalty of dismissal from services and disqualification from the future employment under Rule 11(IX) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 19656 which was duly upheld by the Governor and the Chancellor of Goa University, being the Appellate Authority7 .

B. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

(a) PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST COMMITTEE:

2. The factual matrix of the case needs to be placed in a chronological sequence. The appellant commenced his career in the respondent no. 2 – Goa University as a Temporary Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, in the year 1996. He was

Click here for read more