Supreme Court Upholds Removal of Officer for Sexual Harassment, Emphasizes Zero Tolerance at Workplace

Top court sets precedent affirming strict disciplinary action against sexual harassment, underscoring protection of women's fundamental rights and rejecting High Court’s leniency

In a landmark judgment delivered on January 20, 1999, the Supreme Court of India upheld the dismissal of A.K. Chopra, a former Private Secretary to the Chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council, for sexually harassing a female employee at the workplace. The Court emphatically reinforced that any unwelcome sexual behavior by a superior officer, even absent actual physical contact, constitutes sexual harassment warranting strict disciplinary measures.

The incident involved Chopra pressurizing a subordinate female employee, Miss X, to accompany him to isolated locations under the pretext of work duties. Despite her objections, he repeatedly tried to sit close to her and made unwanted physical advances, including touching attempts and molestation efforts, which she firmly resisted. Despite reprimands and warnings, Chopra persisted with his objectionable conduct, causing a hostile work environment.

Following a departmental enquiry, Chopra was removed from service. However, the Delhi High Court had overturned the removal, reasoning that since Chopra had only “tried to molest” and did not succeed in actual physical contact, the punishment was disproportionate. The High Court reinstated Chopra without back wages but mandated his posting outside Delhi for two years.

The Supreme Court, after a thorough review, set aside the High Court’s judgment. It held that the High Court erred by substituting its discretion for the disciplinary authorities, who are the sole judges of fact and punishment in such cases. The Court underscored that sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances and gestures, whether physical or implied, that violate the modesty and dignity of female employees. It emphasized that the absence of physical contact does not negate the offense or justify leniency.

Citing its earlier verdict in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Court reiterated the constitutional mandate to protect women’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 against sexual harassment at the workplace. It further highlighted India's obligations under international conventions such as CEDAW and the Beijing Declaration to provide a safe and dignified working environment for women.

The Court condemned any leniency in such matters as potentially demoralizing for women employees and detrimental to workplace discipline. It also clarified that judicial review of departmental punishments is limited to procedural fairness and legality, not reappreciation of evidence or imposition of alternate penalties.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court restored Chopra’s removal, affirming that his conduct was unbecoming of a superior officer and amounted to sexual harassment. The judgment sends a strong message that sexual harassment in the workplace will be met with zero tolerance and that courts must uphold the dignity and equality rights of women employees in line with constitutional and international standards.

Statutory provisions: Constitution of India Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 226, 311; Vishaka Guidelines (1997)

Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 15765