Rules On Validity Of Second Inquiry By Internal Committee

Rules On Validity Of Second Inquiry By Internal Committee In Sexual Harassment Case: Verdict By Karnataka High Court

Judgement Given On : 01/07/2019

Overview

In a notable judgment dated July 1, 2019, the Karnataka High Court, in the case of Suman Saurabh v. The Internal Complaints Committee, Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace and Ors., rendered a decision declaring a second inquiry by an internal committee into the same charges under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 as invalid. This ruling raises crucial questions about the propriety of successive investigations into the same allegations of sexual harassment.

Case Background

Suman Saurabh, the petitioner in this case, filed a writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the order/notice dated June 23, 2014, issued by the first respondent (Internal Complaints Committee or IC). The petitioner also sought a declaration that the second respondent (Company) had no authority to conduct a second inquiry into the same charges. The petitioner’s legal challenge stemmed from an incident in which he was called to a meeting under the pretext of a human resources discussion but was subjected to an inquiry regarding alleged sexual harassment. Following this meeting, the petitioner’s employment was terminated without being provided with a copy of the complaint or informed of the specific allegations against him. The petitioner raised objections about the procedural fairness of the proceedings.

After his resignation was accepted, the petitioner underwent a subsequent inquiry and was asked to sign documents prepared by the IC. He refused to do so, and no further correspondence was received from the IC. Subsequently, while on assignment in the United States, the petitioner received communication from the IC, dated May 15, 2014, enclosing a report dated May 11, 2014 (Recommendation). This Recommendation found the petitioner guilty of certain charges related to sexual harassment and recommended his termination. The petitioner responded by reiterating his innocence and highlighting statutory violations committed by the IC.

Despite the ongoing Recommendation and the petitioner’s rebuttal, the IC issued a notice on June 23, 2014, initiating a fresh investigation into the same complaint. This prompted the petitioner to approach the Court.

Arguments

The Company argued that the complaint concerning sexual harassment against the petitioner was received on January 21, 2014. An inquiry was conducted impartially and fairly. Initially, a copy of the complaint was not shared with the petitioner to protect the victim’s identity due to the lack of clarity regarding this requirement in the early days of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act’s implementation. However, during the January 29, 2014, meeting, the petitioner was found guilty. Following an email from the petitioner on May 22, 2014, alleging procedural violations during the initial inquiry, a decision was made to conduct a fresh investigation, devoid of any prior conclusions or inferences.

The petitioner contended that initiating a fresh inquiry while the earlier Recommendation was still pending adjudication was impermissible. Furthermore, he argued that a plain reading of the IC’s Recommendation did not establish sexual harassment, or any harassment as alleged in the complaint. He asserted that the IC’s recommendation for severe penalties, including termination, despite finding no acts amounting to sexual harassment, indicated bias and malice on the IC’s part.

Court’s Observations and Conclusion

The Court noted that despite the petitioner’s objections regarding the IC’s procedures and violations of natural justice, the IC proceeded to make findings on six charges as per the Recommendation. The Court observed that exercising its powers under Section 11 of the Act, the IC recommended termination. However, this recommendation had not been implemented. Surprisingly, the IC issued a notice to initiate a fresh inquiry based on an alleged email received from the petitioner, despite the previous recommendation still awaiting action.

The Court held that until a recommendation is implemented in accordance with the law, it is impermissible for the IC to initiate a fresh inquiry. The Court pointed out that, in light of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, no person should face prosecution or punishment for the same offense more than once as it amounts to “double jeopardy.” Therefore, initiating a second inquiry into the same charges based on the same complaint was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court ruled that the fresh inquiry could not be sustained and allowed the writ petition, questioning the validity of successive inquiries into the same allegations of sexual harassment.