Menu

CASE COMMENT: AURELIANO FERNANDES v. STATE OF GOA

Case Comment, Publications

Citation – CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014

Bench – Justice A.S. BOPANNA AND Justice HIMA KOHLI

  1. FACTS OF THE CASE
  2. In 1996, respondent no. 2 – Goa University hired appellant Aureliano Fernandes as a temporary staff member in the Political Science department. In 2003, he was hired on a permanent basis to work in the same department.
  3. Nine complaints alleging that the appellant had physically harassed them were submitted to the university on a single day. They opened an investigation against him. He asserted at the proceedings on April 27 and 28, 2009, that the faculty and the girls were conspiring against him throughout the whole situation. In addition, he asked to be removed from the committee on the grounds that two of the members were biased against him.
  4. The committee issued out a notice for a second sexual harassment allegation on April 30. He requested authorization on May 2nd to name an attorney on his behalf, but this request was later denied, preponing the hearings from June 12th to May 12th, 2009. Due to some health concerns, the appellant sent a letter to the committee on May 13th, asking for an extension of time to appear before it. On May 14th, the letter was denied. Additionally, the committee instructed him to appear before it on May 19.
  5. After around 10 days, the appellant wrote to the committee, stating among other things that he had somewhat recovered from his health issues. The committee recommended the appellant’s termination and stated that the act “amounted to grave misconduct and was in a grave violation of Rule 3(1)(III) of the CCS (central civil services) conduct rules.” However, the committee had already taken action against the appellant ex parte (in the event that the defendant did not appear for the hearing). A copy of the committee’s report was sent to the registrar.
  6. The Goa University executive council (“EC”) launched an investigation in accordance with “Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules, 1965” after accepting the report that put the appellant under immediate suspension on June 13, 2009. However, as a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Medha Kotwal Lele and others v. Union of India and Others[1], which established that the report from the complaints committee regarding the prevention of sexual harassment at work will be regarded as a “inquiry report” and forwarded to the disciplinary committee in accordance with the CCS CCA Rules. The European Commission’s investigation process had concluded. The EC determined that, given the seriousness of the charges brought against him, the appellant was not fit to be kept in his position.
  7. In an order dated April 19, 2010, the Goa governor and the chancellor of Goa University, acting as the Appellate Authority, upheld the EC’s decision. Subsequently, on May 10, 2010, a ruling was issued under “Rule 11(IX) of the CCS CCA Rules,” which resulted in the termination of his service and a permanent prohibition from employment.
  8. A challenge to the Disciplinary Committee’s orders was entertained by the Bombay High Court. The appellant was given multiple chances to appear before the complaints committee, the Supreme Court stated, indicating that the ex parte order was appropriate. The committee’s ruling to dismiss the medical certificates and deny any prejudice against him on the part of the committee members was also supported by the top court. Therefore, finding that neither the Service Rules nor the principles of natural justice had been violated, the High Court refused the writ petition.
  9. Aureliano Fernandes has further appealed the Bombay High Court’s ruling to the Supreme Court.
  • ISSUE RAISED
  • Whether the inquiry conducted by the complaints committee of Goa University is against ‘the principles of natural justice’ and other rules listed? 
  • Whether the committee is justified in proceeding with ex parteagainst the appellant?
  • CONTENTIONS OF APELLANT
  • Mr. Bishwa Jeet Bhattacharya, the appellant’s attorney, argued that the case’s proceedings were completed expeditiously. The entire process was completed in 39 days. He contended that although the committee had decided to extend the proceedings until June 12th, 2009, it suddenly cut the period short by about a month, leaving the appellant with little opportunity to adequately represent himself. They therefore contended that the principles of natural justice had been willfully violated by depriving him of a fair hearing prior to issuing the termination order.
  • In support of his position, he cited rulings from “the Delhi High Court in Sandeep Khurana v. Delhi Transco Ltd[2]. and Others and of the Karnataka High Court in Professor Giridhar Madras v. Indian Institute of Science represented by Chairman and Others[3],” which stated that the committee’s report was not equivalent to an inquiry officer’s report, as required by Rule 14 of the CCS Standards. The committee’s failure to adhere to the established protocol constitutes a serious breach of natural justice norms. In support of this assertion, he also cited Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
  • He went on to say, “The report submitted by the said Committee could not have been treated by the respondents as an Inquiry Report under CCS (CCA) Rules because he (the appellant) was never informed by the Committee that the proceeding being conducted by it were disciplinary proceedings.”
  • CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT
  • “The appellant had failed to challenge the inquiry initiated by the university at the appropriate stage, so he cannot do the afterwards,” argued Ms. Ruchira Gupta, the respondents’ attorney. She used the appellant’s letter from April 18, 2009, to bolster her submission. In it, he expressed his concerns about some Committee members, but he left out questions concerning the Committee’s jurisdiction and the investigation’s protocol.
  • She further argued that despite the Committee holding eighteen hearings and giving the appellant at least three opportunities to respond, he did not show up for many of them. Only after the appellant consistently asked for adjournments, gave flimsy excuses of indisposition, and neglected to show up did the Committee act ex parte against him.
  • She used the phrase “as far as practicable” from a Delhi High Court ruling in “Avinash Mishra v. Union of India”[4] to support the committee’s latitude in bending the rules.
  • Additionally, she invoked the Supreme Court’s rulings in “P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others” [5]and “Hira Nath Mishra and Others v Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Another”[6] to argue that “the principles of natural justice are not an inflexible doctrine and the facts and circumstances of each case have to be examined to see whether the requirements of natural justice stand satisfied.” Given the delicate nature of the current situation, in which 17 university students have reported the appellant for sexual harassment, the committee.
  • She argued that the appellant was not prejudiced because he had access to pertinent depositions and was aware of the specifics of the accusations from the start. Additionally, the appellant was given lots of chances to answer questions, cross-examine witnesses, and make a defense. The council cites an order from the court in “Medha Kotwal’s case” (above), which states that the Complaints Committee acts as the Inquiry Authority for CCS (CCA) Rules in accordance with the principles established in “Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others”[7].
  • RATIONALE
  • The Supreme Court bench of Justice A.S Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohil held that the proceedings conducted by the committee fell short of the “as far as practicable” norm prescribed under Rule 14 of the CCS Rules [8]because the committee exercised its discretionary powers improperly, defying PNJ. The impugned judgment of the HC upholding the decision of EC of terminating the Services of the appellant was quashed.
  • The court remanded back the matter to the complaints committee for taking up the proceedings as they stood on 5th May 2009 stating that the appellant should be afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself.
  • To fulfil the objective of the POSH Act, the Supreme Court issued certain directions as follows-
  • The union government, state government and union territories are to verify whether all government departments, organizations, bodies, etc., have constituted International Complaints Committees (ICC)/ Local Committees (LC) Internal Committees (IC).
  • All the necessary information regarding the constitution, composition, contact details, relevant rules, policies shall be mentioned on the website of the organization. All statutory bodies of the professionals at the union and the state level also have to undertake similar exercise.
  • Steps shall be taken by the authorities/employers to familiarize the members of ICC/LC/IC about their duties and the matter of inquiry.
  • The authorities/ employers have to regularly conduct orientation/ workshops to upskill the member of ICC/LC/IC and to educate the women employees of the relevant rules and regulations.
  • National legal Services Authorities and State Legal Services Authorities shall conduct workshops and organize awareness programs to sanitize authorities/ employers and employees about the POSH act.
  • National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academics shall conduct orientations/ workshops for capacity building of members of ICC/RC/IC established in the High Courts and District Courts.
  • DEFECTS OF LAW

In the case of Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, a number of possible flaws or deficiencies in the implementation of the law might be found:

1. Procedural Fairness: There are issues with the way Aureliano Fernandes was treated in the disciplinary procedures in terms of procedural justice. Fernandes claimed there was ambiguity about the nature of the proceedings, even though he was given several chances to participate, suggesting a possible communication or transparency breakdown on the part of the institution. It’s possible that this ignorance made it more difficult for him to organize and provide a strong defense.

2. Violation of Natural Justice Principles: There are serious issues with Fernandes’ claim that the proceedings went against natural justice principles. Fernandes was denied a reasonable chance to advocate for himself when the proceedings were abruptly cut short without sufficient notice. It further calls into question the transparency and regularity of the proceedings because Fernandes was not informed that the proceedings were disciplinary in nature.

3. Adherence to Legal Standards: There are questions about whether the university committee conducted the disciplinary investigation in accordance with accepted legal standards and procedures. Fernandes claims that the institution may have misunderstood or improperly used pertinent legal rules in order to argue that the committee’s report should not have been considered an inquiry report under the CCS CCA Rules.[9]

4. Flexibility vs. Procedural Safeguards: Although the respondent stated that procedural safeguards should be prioritized over flexibility in accordance to natural justice principles, this should not be the case. Flexibility should never be used as an excuse for unethical behavior or to violate an accused person’s rights.

It is imperative to rectify these flaws in the implementation of the law in order to guarantee justice, openness, and compliance with the law during disciplinary actions. It emphasizes how crucial it is to preserve the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, especially when dealing with serious accusations like sexual harassment.

  • INFERENCE

The Supreme Court of India’s landmark judgment in Aureliano Fernandes vs State of Goa[10], pronounced on 12 May, 2023, was a significant step forward in the serious implementation of POSH Act in India. The Supreme Court of India has undoubtedly interfered significantly in the case of Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others, especially with regard to the execution and enforcement of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”).[11]

Key inferences of the judgment:

  1. Explanation of Procedural Equity: The ruling makes it clearer what norms of procedural justice must be maintained during disciplinary actions, particularly when there are significant accusations like harassment. It highlights how crucial it is to provide those who are accused enough notice, a chance to address any charges, and a fair trial.
  2. Interpretation of Natural Justice Principles: The ruling upholds people’s right to a fair and impartial trial by interpreting and applying natural justice principles. It emphasizes how important it is for decision-making organizations to operate impartially and openly, making sure that those who are accused are given the chance to defend themselves and refute any evidence presented against them.
  3. Protection of Legal Rights: The ruling upholds the assumption of innocence and the right to due process for those who are accused of misbehavior. It emphasizes how crucial it is to defend these rights in order to avoid injustices and safeguard the fairness of disciplinary actions.
  4. Prevention of Harassment: The ruling helps to stop future misbehavior in the workplace and in educational institutions by resolving claims of harassment and guaranteeing suitable disciplinary action. It makes it very evident that harassment will not be accepted and that those who engage in it will face consequences.

All things considered, the ruling in Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa creates significant legal standards and directives for managing disciplinary actions, encouraging equity, responsibility, and the defense of individual rights.



SUBMITTED BY-

BHUMIKA RATHORE

3rd year BA.LLB (Hons) student

MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO

UNIVERSITY, BARODA

[1] Medha Kotwal Lele and others v. Union of India and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 297.

[2] Sandeep Khurana v. Delhi Transco Ltd. and Others, ILR 2006 (11) Del 1313.

[3] Professor Giridhar Madras v. Indian Institute of Science represented by Chairman and Others, 2019 SCC Online Kar 3508.

[4] Avinash Mishra v. Union of India, 2014 SCC Online Del 1856.

[5] P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others], (2006) 8 SCC 776.

[6] Hira Nath Mishra and Others v Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Another (1973) 1 SCC 805 (India)

[7] Vishaka & Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, (1997) 6 SCC 241 (India)

[8] Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Rule 14, No. 1965, Acts of Parliament, 1965 (India)

[9] Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, No. 1965, Acts of Parliament, 1965 (India)

[10] Aureliano Fernandes v. State Of Goa, Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014 (India)

[11] Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, No. 14 of 2013, India Code (2013)