Court affirms employer's inherent right to suspend, rules against ad hoc committees under PoSH Act, and highlights stigmatic nature of suspension orders.
In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has set aside the suspension order of Professor Rasal Singh, the principal of Ramanujan College, University of Delhi, while addressing key issues related to the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act).
The judgment, delivered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, examined the legal intricacies surrounding the suspension of an employee under allegations of sexual harassment. It emphasized the inherent power of employers to suspend employees pending an inquiry, provided such actions align with established service rules and do not conflict with the PoSH Act.
The court highlighted three critical issues: the inherent power of suspension by an employer, the constitution of ad hoc fact-finding committees, and the stigmatic nature of the suspension order in question.
Key Findings:
1. Inherent Right of Suspension: The court upheld that while the PoSH Act does not explicitly confer the power to suspend an employee, employers retain this inherent right under service rules. Such suspension is permissible as an interim measure, as long as it supplements the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) proceedings and does not derogate from the PoSH Act.
2. Ad Hoc Committees: The court declared the constitution of ad hoc fact-finding committees to inquire into sexual harassment complaints as impermissible and violative of the PoSH Act. It ruled that only the ICC or Local Committee designated under the PoSH Act has the authority to conduct such inquiries, and the establishment of extra-statutory committees undermines the statutory framework and principles of natural justice.
3. Stigmatic Suspension Orders: The court found the language of the suspension order against Professor Singh to be stigmatic, as it prejudged the allegations and carried a negative connotation. It stressed that suspension orders should be neutral and devoid of language that casts aspersions or prejudices the ongoing inquiry.
The judgment concluded by setting aside the stigmatic suspension order, granting the respondent college the liberty to issue a fresh, non-stigmatic order if deemed necessary. This decision underscores the delicate balance between maintaining workplace decorum and ensuring that procedural justice is upheld in cases of alleged misconduct.
Bottom Line:
Sexual Harassment at Workplace - Suspension of an employee under the PoSH Act - Employer's inherent right to suspend an employee pending inquiry established, provided it aligns with service rules and does not conflict with the PoSH Act - Constitution of ad hoc fact-finding committees to examine complaints under the PoSH Act declared impermissible and violative of its provisions.
Statutory provision(s):
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Sections 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 28; General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 16
Prof. Rasal Singh v. University of Delhi, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2888609
