POSH Act | Enquiry Against Police Constable Cannot Be Dispensed With On Mere Presumption That He Would Threaten Witnesses: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court held that an enquiry for an offence under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 against a police constable cannot be dispensed with on mere presumption that he would threaten witnesses.
Even though the charges against the constable were very serious and the interest of the complainant deserved to be protected, the Bench stated that it did not imply that the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 11 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 could be given a complete go by on the basis of mere presumptions.
A Division Bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed, “Even though the charges against the respondent are very serious and the interest of the complainant deserves to be protected, it does not imply that the principles of natural justice as also the provisions of section 11 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 should be given a complete go by on the basis of mere presumptions. Only because the respondent is a police personnel, would in our view, not be a ground either to presume that the witnesses will not come forward to depose against him in a regular enquiry or to hold him guilty without conducting the statutorily prescribed departmental enquiry and that too in a matter like the present where the complainant and the witnesses are also police personnel.”
SC Avnish Ahlawat represented the petitioners, while Advocate Roopansh Purohit appeared for the respondent.
A trainee woman constable (complainant) had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the Police Constable. Based on the complaint, a preliminary enquiry against the Constable was conducted by the Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee, pursuant to which an FIR under Sections 354(A), 294, and 509 of the IPC was registered against him.
Consequently, the Constable was placed under suspension and was dismissed from service thereafter under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
Taking into account the grave nature of the charges of sexual harassment levelled, the petitioner argued that it would not have been practicable to hold a full-fledged enquiry as the same would have created further fear in the mind of the complainant.
However, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) held that an enquiry could not be dispensed with in such a mechanical manner on the mere presumption that the Constable, being a police personnel, would threaten the witnesses.
The High Court observed that the primary reason for the petitioners to not hold any enquiry against the Constable was their presumption that the Constable would threaten or intimidate the complainant and other witnesses. The petitioners were further of the view that a prolonged enquiry would cause more trauma to the complainant.
“It is also evident from the dismissal order that the petitioners had, on the basis of the evidence led in the preliminary enquiry, already made up their mind that the respondent was guilty of serious misconduct and had lowered the image of the police force in the eyes of the public,” the Court noted.
Consequently, the Court upheld the findings of the CAT and set aside the dismissal order or the Constable.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Commissioner of Police & Ors v. Sant Ram (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:3181-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: SC Avnish Ahlawat; Advocates Tania Ahlawat, Nitesh Kumar Singh, Laavanya Kaushik, Aliza Alam and Mohnish Sehrawat
Respondent: Advocates Roopansh Purohit and Harsh Pahwar
