Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

d) Upon receipt of the complaint, respondents 1 to 3, without independently verifying its authenticity or credibility, referred the matter to the Gender Sensitization Committee Against Sexual Harassment (GSCASH). The GSCASH, after a preliminary screening, decided to hold an enquiry and issued a communication dated 20.05.2011 to the applicant, disclosing certain alleged incidents and calling for his reply. However, the applicant was not supplied with the original complaint or the material relied upon.

HARSHIT   Digitally signed by
 YADAV    HARSHIT YADAV



                e)         The applicant submitted a detailed reply dated 23.05.2011

denying all allegations and again requested for supply of the complaint and supporting material. Despite this, the GSCASH proceeded to conduct an enquiry allegedly on an ex-parte basis, without associating the applicant meaningfully in the proceedings, without permitting cross-examination, and without supplying copies of statements or evidence.

8. The applicant was informed of the allegations, called upon to submit his reply, and was associated with the enquiry proceedings. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, GSCASH recorded findings adverse to the applicant and recommended certain penalties. The University imposed interim penalties permissible under the Rules and the applicant preferred a statutory appeal under Rule X (3) of the GSCASH Rules.

(B) Validity of Enquiry under GSCASH

12. The record clearly reveals that the complaint contained serious allegations of sexual and mental harassment. In such matters, the University is under a statutory and constitutional obligation to act promptly and decisively. The enquiry was conducted by GSCASH strictly in accordance with its Rules framed in compliance with Vishaka guidelines.

13. The applicant was informed of the allegations, allowed to submit replies, and was given opportunity to participate in the proceedings. Merely because the applicant was not supplied the verbatim copy of the complaint at the initial stage does not ipso facto vitiate the enquiry, particularly when the substance of allegations was conveyed and adequate opportunity to defend was granted. Procedural fairness does not demand a ritualistic or hyper-technical approach but a reasonable opportunity, which stands satisfied in the present case.