NDLI: Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. Ak. Chopra

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Misconduct Sexual harassment
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Constitution of India
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Service Law:Misconduct - Sexual harassment - Of female employee - At place of work - Approach of court - ln such cases~Held, Departmental disciplinary proceedings should not be dealt with like a criminal trial - Courts are required to examine the broader probability of a case and not get swayed by insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities - They must examine the entire material to determine the genuineness of the complaint -Victim's statement must be appreciated in the background of the entire case - Such cases are required to be dealt with great sensitivity -Sympathy or mercy towards the delinquent, wholly misplaced.Misconduct - Sexual harassment - At place of work - Meaning of - Superior Officer harassed, pestered and subjected his junior female employee by a conduct which was against moral sanctions and did not withstand test of decency and modesty which projected unwelcome sexual advances - Held, Sexual harassment includes any action or gesture which, whether directly or by implication, aims at or has the tendency to outrage the modesty of a female employee - "Molestation" or ''physical assault" cannot be determined with reference to dictionary meaning - The objectionable behaviour; does not cease to be outrageous, even if there is no actual assault or touch by the delinquent superior officer -Objectionable overtures with sexual overtones sufficient.Departmental enquiry - Punishment - Quantum - Judicial review of - Sexual harassment - Charge of - Proved - Delinquent officer's removal from service upheld by appellate authority - Neither Single Judge nor Division Bench of High Court found fault with the conduct of enquiry - However, High Court reinstated the delinquent officer in service by holding that he had not "actually molested" the female employee but only "tried to molest" her and had "not managed" to make physical contact with her - Held, In such circumstance, High Court erred in interfering with the punishment - What punishment is to be imposed is within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and does not warrant interference by High Court lightly - Reduction of punishment in a case like this is bound to have a demoralising effect on women employees and is a retrograde step -ln the facts of the case, punishment of removal from service is commensurate with the acts of the delinquent's unbecoming of good conduct and behaviour expected from a Superior officer - Delinquent's repentance and unqualified apology at the final stage of appeal does not call for any sympathy or mercy.Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 15 and 21.Sexual harassment - Of female employees - At place of work - Held: Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination projected through unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours and other verbal or physical conduct with sexual overtones when submission/rejection of which affects the employment or work performance of the female employee or has the effect of creating an intimidating or hostile environment for her - Such incidents violate her fundamental right to gender equality and right to the life and liberty Such sexual harassment is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and there can be no compromise with such violations - Further, International Instruments cast an obligation on India to gender sensitise its laws and its Courts are obliged to follow such International Conventions - ILO Seminar at Manila (1993) - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 ("CEDAW') - Beijing Declaration on Women, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 226 - Departmental enquiry - Findings of fact - interference with - By High Court - Held, High Court should not normally interfere unless the findings are based on no evidence or are perverse and/or legally untenable - High Court cannot sit as an appellate authority and substitute its own conclusion regarding the guilt of the delinquent - Adequacy or inadequacy of evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court - As regards punishment/penalty imposed, High Court should not normally interfere unless it is impermissible or shocks its conscience - In the circumstance of the case, High Court erred in interfering with the findings of fact and punishment imposed which were upheld by appellate authority.Articles 32 and 226 - Violation of human rights - Cases of - Held, Supreme Court and High Courts must apply International Conventions and Norms especially when there is no inconsistency between them and the domestic law occupying the field. Administrative Law:A Judicial review - Nature and scope of - Held, Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision out review of the manner of arriving at the decision - It is not concerned with the correctness of the decision but is confined to the examination of the decision-making process, namely, principles established by law and rules of natural justice and fair play - Court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority.Sexual harassment - Of female employee - At place of work - Defined.Words and Phrases:"Sexual harassment" and "molestation" - Meaning of.
Judge	Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand
Neutral Citation	1999 INSC 12
Petitioner	Apparel Export Promotion Council
Respondent	Ak. Chopra
SCR	[1999] 1 S.C.R. 117
Judgement Date	1999-01-20
Case Number	226

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. Ak. Chopra

Please Log-in to view this content

Mrs. Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & Anr.

Engineering Export Promotion Council Vs. Usha Anand and Another

Union of India and Others Vs. Dilip Paul

Dr. Vijayakumaran C.p.v. Vs. Central University of Kerala & Ors.

MANAGEMENT OF APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL v. SURYA PRAKASH [ LPA 1114/2005 INDLHC 84 (7 January 2011)]

Gurdip Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Rajasthan State Sports Council & Anr. Vs. Smt. Uma Dadhich & Anr.

The Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha and Anr Vs. Dr. K. Santhakumari

AEPC VRS EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. v. APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL [ CW 7707/2005 INDLHC 140 (11 January 2011)]

Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. Ak. Chopra

Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. Ak. Chopra

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Mrs. Anita Malhotra Vs. Apparel Export Promotion Council & Anr.

Engineering Export Promotion Council Vs. Usha Anand and Another

Union of India and Others Vs. Dilip Paul

Dr. Vijayakumaran C.p.v. Vs. Central University of Kerala & Ors.

MANAGEMENT OF APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL v. SURYA PRAKASH [ LPA 1114/2005 INDLHC 84 (7 January 2011)]

Gurdip Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Rajasthan State Sports Council & Anr. Vs. Smt. Uma Dadhich & Anr.

The Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha and Anr Vs. Dr. K. Santhakumari

AEPC VRS EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS. v. APPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL [ CW 7707/2005 INDLHC 140 (11 January 2011)]

Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. Ak. Chopra