Protection From Sexual Harassment & Right To Work With Dignity Is Universally Recognized: Andhra Pradesh HC Stresses On Safe Working Place For Women

Observing that the petitioner/accused in his service of 18 years, was awarded six punishments for various misconduct, and utterly failed to change his attitude, the Andhra Pradesh High Court referred to the decision in case of Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others [(1997) 6 SCC 241] and upheld the imposition of the penalty of removal from service of a Junior Assistant in 2nd Battalion, APSP, Kurnool, who was accused of misbehaviour with another lady junior assistant at workplace.

Highlighting that right to life means life to live with dignity which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Division Bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice K. Manmadha Rao observed that “The proved act of the petitioner is against the gender equality which includes the protection from sexual harassment and right to work with dignity which is universally recognized as basic human rights. Women have fundamental right to carry on any occupation or trade and this to be effective, there should be safe working environment”.

The Bench went on to explain that as per Vishaka Guidelines, “for the conduct of causing sexual harassment of women in workplace, which amounts to misconduct in employment, appropriate disciplinary action should be initiated in accordance with the relevant service rules”.

Advocate Manoj Kumar Bethapudi appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate G. V. S. Kishore Kumar appeared for the Respondents.

The brief facts of the case were that the petitioner, appointed as Junior Assistant at 2nd Battalion, APSP, Kurnool, in 1994, was placed under suspension pursuant to Rc. No. A6/PR-17/2013. The suspension stemmed from grave allegations of misconduct towards a fellow colleague, where the petitioner allegedly obstructed her path, made unwarranted advances, and resorted to threats, thereby causing disruption and distress within the office environment. Although he was reinstated, a charge memo was issued, encompassing the reprehensible behaviour, and highlighting the petitioner's prior disciplinary infractions. The petitioner in response, refuted the charges. However, given the petitioner's history of two prior suspensions, six instances of disciplinary action coupled with an apparent failure to rectify his conduct over an 18-year span of service, the situation underscored a concerning pattern of alleged harassment and recalcitrance.

After considering the submission, the Bench considered the Enquiry Officer’s thorough investigation based on Rule-20 of A.P. Civil Service Rules-1991 and analysed statements from prosecution witnesses, to observe that the Petitioner attempted to negatively influence the complainant, had engaged in inappropriate behaviour, and had created a hostile office environment.

“The charge-I against the petitioner related to the petitioner’s most reprehensible misconduct in misbehaving with lady junior assistant on 10.05.2013 afternoon during the lunch hours by obstructing her way, by stretching his leg across when she was going to lunch and demand to fulfil his favours, catching hold her hand with mala fide intention, in a most indecent manner, trying to outrage her modesty, threatening her with dire consequences, creating nuisance in the office which was highly reprehensible”, added the Bench.

The Bench went on to highlight that in case of Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, the Apex Court had laid down certain guidelines and the norms for due observance at all work places or other institutions for the effective enforcement of the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment and abuse, until a legislation was enacted for the purpose.

Since eyewitness testimonies and administrative warnings corroborated the charges, the Bench noted no procedural defect in holding enquiry or in passing the order of penalty.

Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the imposition of penalty of removal from service under the circumstances cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges proved.

Cause Title: C. Govinda Rajulu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Click here to read/download Judgment