Vishaka and others V. State of Rajasthan and others.

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. That the respondent tried to sit too close to Miss X with ulterior motivesand all along Miss X kept reprimanding him but to no avail;6. That the respondent was repeating his implicit unwelcome sexualadvances and Miss X told him that if he continued to behave in that fashion, shewould leave the place;7. That the respondent acted in a manner which demonstrated unwelcomesexual advances, both directly and by implication;8. That action of the respondent created an intimated and hostile workingenvironment in so far as Miss X is concerned.16. The above facts are borne out from the evidence on the record and onthe basis of these facts, the departmental authorities keeping in view the fact that theactions of the respondent were considered to be subversive of good discipline andnot conductive to proper working in the appellant Organization where there were anumber of female employees, took action against the respondent and removed himfrom service.17. The High Court appears to have overlooked the settled position that indepartmental proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole Judge of facts and incase an appeal is presented to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority hasalso the power/ and jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and come to its ownconclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities . Once findings of fact,based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction maynot normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recordedfindings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverseand / or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is notpermitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since, the High Court does not sitas an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmentalproceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court cannotnormally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of thedelinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition ofpenalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by theDisciplinary or the Departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or suchthat it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its18
own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned singleJudge and the Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored the well-settledprinciple that even though Judicial Review of administrative action must remain flexibleand its dimension not closed, yet the Court in exercise of the power of judicial reviewis not concerned with the correctness of the findings are reasonably supported byevidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted withfor procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which thedecision was arrived at . Judicial Review, it must be remembered, is directed notagainst the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision-makingprocess. Lord Haltom in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans (1982)3All ER 141, observed:“The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fairtreatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches,on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which iscorrect in the eyes of the Court.”18. Judicial Review, not being an appeal from a decision, but a review of themanner in which the decision was arrived at, the Court while exercising the powerof Judicial Review must remain conscious of the fact that if the decision has beenarrived at by the Administrative after following the principles established by law andthe rules of natural justice and the individual has received a fair treatment to meetthe case against him, the Court cannot substitute, its judgment for that of theAdministrative Authority on a matter which fell squarely within the sphere if jurisdictionof that authority.19. It is useful to note the following observations of this Court in Union ofIndia v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618: (1972 Lab IC 627 at Pp. 630-31) :“Where there are some relevant materials which the authority has accepted andwhich materials may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer is guilty, it isnot the function of the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to reviewthe materials and to arrive at an independent findings in the materials.If the enquiry has been properly held the question of adequacy or reliability ofthe evidence cannot be canvassed before the High Court.”19
Page 1: Vishaka and others V. State of Raja
Page 5: equirement as logical concomitant o
Page 12 and 13: Apparel Export Promotion Council v.
Page 14: 6. The Enquiry Officer concluded th
Page 20 and 21: 20. After a detailed review of the
Page 22 and 23: y the Division Bench, itself demons
Page 24 and 25: the respondent caused sexual harass
Page 26 and 27: international instruments. The Cour
Page 28 and 29: Supreme Court of IndiaRecord of Pro
Page 30 and 31: Government of IndiaMinistry of Pers
Page 32 and 33: Explanation :- Where any comment, a
Page 34 and 35: etain the original complaint with h
Page 36 and 37: SEXUAL HARASSMENTAT WORK PLACENATIO
Page 38 and 39: FOREWORDThe Supreme Court of India

Vishaka and others V. State of Rajasthan and others.

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?