Facts in Brief

The respondent was removed from his post as an employee of the appellant Council after the relevant disciplinary authorities found him guilty of sexually harassing X, a junior female employee. He filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging his dismissal. A Single Judge allowed the petition, holding that the dismissal was unjustified on the ground that the respondent had merely tried to molest X and had not actually established any physical contact with her. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated, and a Division Bench of the High Court upheld that order. The dismissing organisation then challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held as follows:

1. In the absence of any procedural irregularity, the High Court was wrong to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authorities and with the punishment they had imposed. It is a well-settled principle that, in exercising the power of judicial review, the court is not concerned with the correctness of findings of fact that are reasonably supported by evidence, but with the decision-making process itself.
2. Sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination projected through direct or implied unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. It is aggravated when submission to, or rejection of, such conduct by a female employee affects her employment, unreasonably interferes with her performance at work, or creates an intimidating or hostile working environment for her.
3. Every incident of sexual harassment in the workplace is incompatible with the dignity and honour of women and violates the fundamental rights to equality, life and liberty. The Apex Court observed:

“Each incident of sexual harassment at the place of work results in violation of the fundamental right to gender equality and the right to life and liberty — the two most precious fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India. The contents of the fundamental rights guaranteed in our Constitution are of sufficient amplitude to encompass all facets of gender equality, including prevention of sexual harassment and abuse, and the courts are under a constitutional obligation to protect and preserve those fundamental rights. That sexual harassment of a female at the place of work is incompatible with the dignity and honour of a female and needs to be eliminated, and that there can be no compromise with such violations, admits no debate.”

4. Rejecting outright the stand taken by the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the respondent’s behaviour did not cease to be outrageous merely for want of physical contact. The High Court’s observations — that the respondent did not actually molest X because he had not established such contact with her — were highly unacceptable.
5. Consequently, the Apex Court held that the respondent’s conduct offended against morality, decency and X’s modesty. It constituted an act unbecoming of the good conduct and behaviour expected of a superior employee, and undoubtedly amounted to sexual harassment. Any reduction in punishment was therefore bound to have a demoralising effect on women employees and would amount to a retrograde step.