Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Milind Mamlekar, a supervisor in the Estate Section of Goa University, challenged the penalty imposed on him following a complaint of sexual harassment filed by a female class IV employee (sweeper/scavenger) who had worked for 20 years. The complaint alleged that in July, while she was cleaning the Ph.D. hostel, the petitioner arrived and under the pretext of showing her an uncleaned floor, physically attacked her. She resisted and threatened to complain, but due to superiors being absent, she could not lodge a complaint earlier. The Goa University constituted a Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (CPSHW) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which inquired into the matter and recommended a penalty. The petitioner assailed the decision on grounds of violation of natural justice and perversity. The court, after considering the submissions, held that the inquiry was conducted fairly and the findings were not perverse. The court emphasized that sexual harassment violates fundamental rights to equality (Article 14) and life with dignity (Article 21) and that the Act of 2013 is an extension of the Vishaka guidelines. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the penalty.
Headnote
A) Sexual Harassment - Workplace - Fundamental Rights - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - The court examined whether the inquiry and penalty imposed on a supervisor for sexual harassment of a class IV employee violated natural justice or were perverse. Held that the complaint was properly inquired into by the CPSHW and the penalty was upheld. (Paras 1-4) B) Natural Justice - Inquiry - Fair Hearing - The petitioner alleged denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and bias. The court found that the committee followed due process and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner pursuant to a complaint of sexual harassment was vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice or perversity of findings.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the penalty imposed on the petitioner.
Law Points
- Sexual harassment violates fundamental rights to equality and life with dignity
- Vishaka guidelines
- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act 2013
- principles of natural justice
- perversity of findings
