REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELALTE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7355 2008

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10044 of 2006

D.S. Grewal … Appellant

Versus

Vimmi Joshi and others … Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7356 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10046 of 2006

Chairman School Managing Committee and others … Appellants

Versus

Vimi Joshi and others … Respondents

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7357 OF 2008

(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 10143 of 2006

Hitendra Bahadur … Appellant

Versus

Vimi Joshi and others … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA, J.

1

1.Leave granted.

2.These three appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated

3

rd

May, 2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal

at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 398 (S/B) of 2004.

3.In Pithoragarh where an army unit is situated, an Army Public School

known as Gen. B.C. Joshi Army Public School is being run by a society

known as Army Welfare Education Society.

4.Appellant (Brig. D.S. Grewal, hereinafter referred to as ‘Grewal’) in

Civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.10044 of 2006 is the Chairman of

the School Managing Committee while Col. Hitendra Bahadur appellant in

Civil Appeal arising out of. SLP (C) No.10143 of 2006 is the Vice

Chairman thereof. Chairman, School Managing Committee and others are

the appellants in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.10046 of 2006.

5.First respondent Vimmi Joshi applied for and was appointed as a

Trained Graduate Teacher in Gen. B.C. Joshi Army Public School. She was

later on appointed as Post Graduate Teacher (Mathematics). She was

confirmed in the said post. She worked as an officiating Principal from

2

10.2.2003 to 10.8.2003. She was appointed as the Principal of the school

from 10.2.2004.

6.Appellant Hitendra Bahadur was a Deputy Commander, 69 Mountain

Brigade. He, at the relevant time, was posted at Pithoragarh. While he was

stationed at Sonamarg in connection with providing security cover to

pilgrims of ‘Amarnath Yatra’, he wrote a letter to the first respondent, the

contents whereof read as under :-

“My dearest Vimmi,

Allow me to confess to you that I have

fallen in love with you. What a man needs in a

woman ? Love, trust and faith, when I look deep

into your eyes I find there in abundance. No

where in my life I have ever come across a woman

where intelligence, appearance, maturity and

beauty is so well awarded in one single person as

in you. You are no doubt, a very charming and

gorgeous woman, beautiful and attractive. You

are very magnetic. Always elegantly drew-up, you

look very stylist and fashionable with slim and

slender body. You appear absolutely fit,

intelligent, witty, confident, compassionate and

very much in control, you are truly a role model

for all young people at you place and most darling

friend to me. I adore you from the core of my

heart and always value our friendship. You are

precious and priceless. May I extend my hands

towards you and hold your hands tightly and ask

you to lean on my shoulder when ever you need

me. It will be a great pleasure.

3

With lots of love.

Your

Sd/-

“H”

7.Allegedly Hitendra Bahadur used to make advances towards

respondent No.1. She reported the matter to Grewal. Her father also met

him. Allegedly he was abused by Grewal.

8.On or about 12

th

October, 2004 Grewal addressed a letter to

respondent No.1 with respect to her allegations against Hitendra Bahadur.

She was allegedly asked to give her complaint in writing stating :-

“1.I am writing to you regarding the allegation

made by you against Colonel Hitendra Bahadur,

SM, the Deputy Commander of 69 Mountain

Brigade.

2.On 27

th

Sep 04, during the interaction with

me in my office at your request, you apprised me

that the Deputy Commander has written a letter to

you. The letter was shown to me and I observed

that the portion at the bottom was torn and there

was no name or signature. I asked you as to why

the portion was torn but no answer was given.

3.On 09 Oct 04, your father came to my office

to meet me. He also made an allegation against

the Deputy Commander. You were then asked by

Maj Pankaj Bhola, the BM of 69, Mountain

Brigade to meet me in my office. The matter was

4

discussed and I directed you to forward the

allegation in writing to me by 09 Oct. 04.

4.Till date, the allegation has not been

received by me. Hence, I will not take cognizance

of the matter.”

9.On or about 25

th

October, 2004 two anonymous complaints were

received by the Managing Committee from the Head Quarters as against

respondent No.1.By a memorandum dated 25

th

October, 2004 she was

asked to give her comments on the said allegations. She made her

comments by her letter dated 27

th

October, 2004. However, her services

were terminated by an order dated 4

th

December, 2004 stating :-

“1.Refer to this Headquarters letter number

620401/1/APS/Sigs-4 dated 30

th

Sep 2004 and

Article 186 (f) of AWES Rules and Regulations

Vol.-I, for Army Schools/Army Public School

(Oct 2003 Edition).

2.SMC regrets to inform you that your

services are no more required, hence your services

are terminated forthwith.

3.A cheque bearing machine number 176096

dated 04

th

Dec 04 for Rs.14,200.00 (Rupees

fourteen thousand two hundred only) towards one

month salary is enclosed as per the agreement.

4.Handing/Taking over all documents and

other important correspondence held on your

charge will be carried out with Mr. Kunwar Pratap

Singh (Senior most PCT) of Gen BC Joshi APS,

Pithoragarh.

5

Sd/-

( D.S. Grewal )

Brig.

Chairman ”

10.A writ petition was filed by her questioning the legality of the said

order of termination alleging sexual harassment by Hitendra Bahadur as one

of the grounds, wherein an interim order was passed on 3.5.2006. The said

interim order is impugned in these appeals.

11.In the meanwhile a purported enquiry was conducted. Respondent

No.1 allegedly participated therein. By a report dated 20

th

January, 2005 it

was found to be not a case of sexual harassment. Hitendra Bahadur was

directed to be counseled.

12.Before the High Court appellants filed their counter-affidavits inter

alia contending :-

(i) That the order of termination has nothing to do with the

alleged sexual harassment.

6

(ii) Writing a letter was merely appreciable in nature and by

reason thereof no sexual harassment was caused by

Hitendra Bahadur.

(iii) Hitendra Bahadur has nothing to do with the

Management of the School and that the letter having

been sent from Sonamarg cannot be said to have any

sexual harassment at the work place of the first

respondent.

13.By reason of the impugned order, however, the Division Bench

found that it was a clear cut case of sexual harassment of the writ petitioner-

respondent No.1 herein. It was, therefore, directed :-

“Therefore, the Secretary, Ministry of Defence,

Government of India and the Chief of the Army

Staff are directed to take disciplinary action

against these two officers, as the case of sexual

harassment is evident from the contents of the

letter and the admission by both the officers

followed by the termination of the petitioner.

7.We are passing this order in view of the law

laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of “Vishakha & others vs. State of Rajasthan

reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241”.

8.The progress of the disciplinary action so

taken in such a serious manner which may even

warrant the court martial proceedings of these two

7

officers shall be submitted before this Court within

a period of two months from the date of

production of the certified copy of this order.”

14.Before, however, we embark upon the respective contentions of the

parties we may notice that a review application was filed before the High

Court which was also dismissed by order dated 18

th

May, 2006. The said

order of the High Court refusing to review its earlier order dated 3

rd

May,

2006 is not in question in these appeals.

15.We may furthermore place on record that a first information report

was also lodged against respondent No.1 by the school management

alleging financial irregularities. After investigation carried out in this

behalf a final report was submitted exonerating her and the report has been

accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pithoragarh by an order dated

13

th

February, 2006.

16.Mr. K.K. Rai and Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit :-

(1)That the High Court should not have arrived at its finding that Col

Hitendra Bahadur had caused sexual harassment to respondent

8

No.1, so as to pass a final judgment on the subject despite

directing initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against them.

(2)As first respondent was appointed only on probation for one year

and during the probation period her services could be terminated

by giving one month’s notice or salary in lieu thereof without

assigning any reason by the appointing authority, no case has been

made out to pass an interim order of the nature as has been done

by the High Court.

(3)As despite opportunities given she did not make any complaint in

writing, cognizance of the said letter dated 22

nd

July, 2004 of Col

Hitendra Bahadur was rightly not taken by Grewal.

(4)As Hitendra Bahadur had already undergone an enquiry, a

direction for second enquiry was wholly misconceived.

17.Ms. S. Janani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ

petitioner-respondent No.1 on the other hand would contend :-

(1)That admittedly the letter was written by the Vice Chairman of

the School Managing Committee to respondent No.1, Vimi

Joshi who was his subordinate ;

9

(2)As the Vice Chairman of the Managing Committee of the

School, he was in a commanding position ;

(3)As the matter was brought to the notice of the Chairman of the

School Managing Committee, no further complaint in writing

was required to be made.

(4)The circumstances attending to the case clearly show that the

termination of respondent No.1’s services was mala fide and/or

otherwise bad in law.

18.Indisputably the writ petition was filed by respondent No.1 which is

still pending. In our opinion, it would, thus, be not proper for us to enter

into merit of the matter.

19.However, indisputably, in terms of the judgment of this Court in

Vishakha and others (supra) certain guidelines have been laid down by this

Court till an appropriate legislation is made in this behalf, some of them

being, - disciplinary action, complaint mechanism and complaints

committee. These are as under :-

“6. Disciplinary action:

Where such conduct amounts to misconduct

in employment as defined by the relevant

service rules, appropriate disciplinary action

10

should be initiated by the employer in

accordance with those rules.

6. Complaint mechanism:

Whether or not such conduct constitutes an

offence under law or a breach of the service

rules, an appropriate complaint mechanism

should be created in the employer’s

organization for redress of the complaint made

by the victim. Such complaint mechanism

should ensure time-bound treatment of

complaints.

7. Complaints Committee:

The complaint mechanism, referred to in (6)

above, should be adequate to provide, where

necessary, a Complaints Committee, a special

counsellor or other support service, including

the maintenance of confidentiality.

The Complaints Committee should be

headed by a woman and not less than half of its

members should be women. Further, to prevent

the possibility of any undue pressure or

influence from senior levels, such

Complaints Committee should involve a third

party, either NGO or other body who is familiar

with the issue of sexual harassment.

The Complaints Committee must make an

annual report to the Government Department

concerned of the complaints and action taken

by them.

The employers and person-in-charge will

also report on the compliance with the

aforesaid guidelines including on the reports of

the Complaints Committee to the Government

Department.”

The Court furthermore defined ‘sexual harassment’ to include :-

11

“For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such

unwelcome sexually determined behaviour

(whether directly or by implication) as:

(a)physical contact and

advances;

(b)a demand or request for

sexual favours;

(c)sexually-coloured remarks;

(d)showing pornography;

(e)any other unwelcome

physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of

sexual nature.

The Legislature too have keeping in mind the abovenoted guidelines

from Vishakha (supra) recently drafted the Protection of Women against

Sexual Harassment at Workplace Bill, 2007. The Bill is to provide ‘for the

prevention and redressal of sexual harassment of women at workplace and

for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto’. The draft law

provides for consideration of a mandatory committee to hear complaints of

sexual harassment. It also stipulates the procedures for setting up of these

committees. If the complaint is found to be true, the draft law provides for

monetary compensation. It also stipulates a time period for completing the

enquiry and for employers to take action against the accused. We are aware

that the Bill has not till yet been enacted by the Parliament. We cite the Bill

only to show that the law makers too have accepted the directions and

guidelines which had been laid down by this Court.

12

20.Respondent No.1 was a working lady. She was working as the

Principal of the School. She was drawing a salary. It is a public enterprise.

She felt humiliated not only by reason of the said letter; according to her,

Hitendra Bahadur also made advances towards her. She had, therefore, a

reasonable ground to believe that her objection, thus, would cause

disadvantage to her in connection with her employment or work including

her recruitment or promotion or creating a hostile working environment.

According to her, adverse consequences visited as her services have been

terminated.

21.Vishakha (supra) has been followed in Apparel Export Promotion

Council v. A.K. Chopra, [ (1999) 1 SCC 759 ] wherein a Division Bench of

this Court inter alia held that in a case involving violation of human rights,

the Courts must forever remain alive to the international instruments and

conventions and apply the same to a given case when there is no

inconsistency between the international norms and the domestic law

occupying the field.

22.Before, however, a disciplinary proceeding is initiated in a case of

this nature, a prima facie finding has to be arrived at as regards the role of

13

the delinquent. It has been stated before us that the job of Col Hitendra

Bahadur was merely to function as the Chairman in the absence of the

regular Chairman.

23.It is not in dispute that no Complaint Committee has been constituted;

no mechanism has been put in place for redressal of the complaint made by

the victim. For one reason or the other Grewal failed and/or neglected to

take appropriate action.

24.It is a matter of great regret that the army which is a disciplined

organization failed to provide a complaint mechanism and ignored the

decision of this Court which was bound to be given effect to in terms of

Article 144 of the Constitution of India. A complaint committee as per

‘Vishakha’ was constituted for the other teachers and the staff but evidently

no complaint committee was constituted for entertaining a complaint of this

nature. Even the purported disciplinary action initiated by the appellants

does not provide a complete picture. A report was submitted but whether

any further action has been taken or not is not known.

14

25.The High Court, in our opinion, without getting the matter enquired

into could not have opined that it was a clear cut case of sexual harassment

of the writ petitioner and on that basis directed initiation of a disciplinary

action in the manner as has been done in paragraph 8 noticed (supra).

26.We, in modification, of the order passed by the High Court direct that

as no complaint committee has been constituted, which was imperative in

character, the High Court may appoint a Three Members Committee headed

by a Lady and in the event it is found that the writ petitioner was subjected

to sexual harassment, the report thereof may be sent to the army authorities

for initiation of a disciplinary action against the appellants herein on the

basis thereof. All the expenditures which may be incurred in this behalf

may be borne by the Army Authorities. .

27.We would request the High Court also to consider the desirability of

disposing of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible.

28.The appeals are disposed of accordingly. As the Management of the

school is guilty of violating the guidelines issued by this Court in Vishakha

and others (supra), we direct that the Management to pay and bear all the

cost of the first respondent. Counsel fee is assessed at Rs.50,000/-.

15

………………………J.

[ S.B, Sinha ]

………………………J.

[ Cyriac Joseph ]

New Delhi

December 17, 2008

16