# In Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (supra) the Supreme Court

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 140
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-02-14
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22246 of 2002
- **Bench:** M. Katju, Prakash Krishna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/in-apparel-export-promotion-council-v-a-k-chopra-supra-the-supreme-court-40047
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
compulsorily
Retirement-
Petitioner
working as Assistant Treasurer- in cash
department- made sexual harassment to
senior ladies officer- after full fledged
enquiry the disciplinary authority taken
the decision- can not be interfered by
High Court.

Held- Para 10

In Apparel Export Promotion Council v.
A.K. Chopra (supra) the Supreme Court
held that in a case of sexual harassment
for the offending action to be outrageous
actual assault or touch by the offender is
not essential. Objectionable overtures
with sexual overtone is enough.
Case law discussed:
1997 (6) SCC 241
AIR 1999 SC-625

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
5. The revision stands disposed of
subject to the above observations and
directions.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10 FEBRUARY, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22246 of 2002

R.B.S. Chauhan

...Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.B. Singh
Sri Vijay Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Verma
Sri Sharad Verma
Sri Yashwant Verma

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226-
compulsorily
Retirement-
Petitioner
working as Assistant Treasurer- in cash
department- made sexual harassment to
senior ladies officer- after full fledged
enquiry the disciplinary authority taken
the decision- can not be interfered by
High Court.

Held- Para 10

In Apparel Export Promotion Council v.
A.K. Chopra (supra) the Supreme Court
held that in a case of sexual harassment
for the offending action to be outrageous
actual assault or touch by the offender is
not essential. Objectionable overtures
with sexual overtone is enough.
Case law discussed:
1997 (6) SCC 241
AIR 1999 SC-625

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
for a writ of certiorari to quash the
impugned order dated 7.5.2002 Annexure
7 to the writ petition by which the
petitioner has been compulsorily retired.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was selected in the
service of Reserve Bank of India vide
appointment letter, copy of which is
Annexure 2 to the writ petition, and he
was granted promotions vide Annexures
3,4 and 5 to the writ petition. It is stated in
paragraph 10 of the petition that the
petitioner's retirement age is 60 years but
he has been compulsorily retired at the
age of 55 1⁄2 years. The relevant extract of
the
relevant
Rule
providing
for
compulsorily retirement is Annexure 8 to
the writ petition.

The
regulation
26
of
RBI(Staff)
Regulation 1948 states-

"26. (1) An employee shall retire at
60 years of age but no extension shall be
given to any employee beyond 60 years of
age.

Provided that an employee who
attains the age of superannuation on any
day other than first during a calendar
month, shall retire on the last day of that
month:

Superannuation and Retirement

Provided further that in the case of
an employee in Class IV who has reached
the age of 55 years the Bank may, in its
discretion, retire him after giving two
month's notice in writing if in the opinion
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] R.B.S. Chauhan V. Reserve Bank of India and others 141
of the competent authority his efficiency
is found to have been impaired.

Provided further that the Bank may,
in its discretion, retire in public interest an
employee, other than an employee in
Class IV, at any time after completion of
50 years age;

Provided further in the case of an
employee in Class III and Class I, who
has attained the age of 60 years shall be
subject to his being suitable to be retained
in service."

3. It is alleged in paragraph 12 of the
petition that there was no material before
the Committee of the Central Board or
before respondent no. 2 and 3 to pass the
impugned
order
of
compulsory
retirement.
It
is
alleged
that
the
petitioner's record is excellent and there is
no adverse entry against him. He has also
earned promotions, the latest one being on
7.7.2000. In paragraph 22 of the petition it
is alleged that no opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner before passing
the impugned order and hence there was
violation of natural justice.

4. The respondent Bank has filed a
counter affidavit. In paragraph 9 of the
same it is stated that complaint of sexual
harassment was received against the
petitioner from a lady Class I officer
serving in the respondent Bank at Kanpur.
In respect of this complaint the Regional
Complaint Committee, which conducted
an enquiry giving opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner submitted its report,
dated 14.2.2002. The Regional Director
RBI, Kanpur on 6.4.2002 made a
recommendation to the Chief General
Manager for the petitioner's compulsory
retirement.
5. In paragraph 12 of the counter
affidavit it is stated that the entire service
record of the petitioner as well as the
report of the enquiry into the incident of
sexual harassment was placed before the
Committee of the Central Board. The
Committee looked various matters and
then made the recommendation for
compulsory retirement of the petitioner.
In paragraph 13 it is stated that if action
has not been taken against the petitioner it
would have a demoralizing effect on the
numerous lady employees of the Bank
and therefore, it was in the public interest
to pass the impugned order. In paragraph
17 of the counter affidavit it is stated that
various
departmental
enquiries
were
conducted against the petitioner and he
was also dismissed from service but
subsequently he was reinstated upon the
intervention of the Union, and numerous
advisory letters were issued to him which
failed to have any effect. In paragraph 20
and 26 of the counter affidavit it is stated
that the respondent Bank took into
consideration the entire service record of
the petitioner as also the incident of
sexual harassment which occurred on
30.12.2001 at Agra and it was then
decided to pass the order of compulsory
retirement of the petitioner.

6. The Regional Director of the
Bank at Kanpur has also filed a
supplementary counter affidavit and we
have perused the same. In paragraph 4 of
the same it is mentioned that the
petitioner was working as Assistant
Treasurer in the cash department of the
RBI, Kanpur. One Smt. Anita Mehta was
working
as
Manager
in
the
said
department on post higher than that of the
petitioner. Both these officers were
deputed to visit Agra and Mathura for
inspection of Currency Chest from
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
18.12.2001 to 17.1.2002. It was during
this visit to Agra that the alleged sexual
harassment of Smt. Anita Mehta by the
petitioner took place. In this connection
Smt. Anita Mehta has given a written
complaint to the Regional Director,
Reserve Bank of India, Kanpur dated
4.1.2002, copy of which is Annexure
SCA-1 to the affidavit. It is stated in that
complaint that the petitioner and the
complainant had both gone to Agra for an
official visit and were staying in the same
Hotel
but
in
different
rooms.
On
30.12.2001 at about 9.00 p.m. the
petitioner rang the bell of Smt. Anita
Mehta's room and when she opened the
door the petitioner said that he wanted to
talk to her urgently. Thereafter he came in
the room of Smt. Anita Mehta and said
that he wanted to have dinner. She gave
him dinner but after dinner he refused to
go back to his own room and said "I am
alone, you are alone, we can enjoy". Smt.
Anita was horrified at this disgusting
immoral remark and asked him to leave
the room on 31.12.2001. At about 8.45
p.m. he opened over the intercom 'please
do not put the receiver down. Have you
pardon me or not. Please pardon me. I
know
not
what
happened
to
me
yesterday.'
Smt.
Anita
Mehta
immediately put the receiver down and on
the same day at 4.45 p.m. after inspection
of the currency chest she telephoned the
General Manager, Issue Department,
Kanpur saying that she was not feeling
comfortable and wanted to come back.
Thereafter she returned back to Kanpur on
1.1.2002 and informed the General
Manager about the incident. She alleged
that she is in a mental shock, tension and
grief due to the act of the petitioner,
which is unpardonable.

7. The matter was referred to the
Sexual Harassment Committee of the
Bank and the Committee conducted a
regular enquiry in which the petitioner
attended as stated in paragraph 5 of the
supplementary
counter
affidavit.
Thereafter the Committee submitted the
report. The copy of the entire proceedings
of the Sexual Harassment Committee has
been annexed as Annexure SCA-2 to the
affidavit and its report is Annexure SCA3 to the affidavit. The report was placed
before the Regional Director and the
matter was referred to the Central Office
of the RBI Bombay. Thereafter the
impugned order was passed.

8. In our opinion the conduct of the
petitioner is deplorable and cannot be
condoned.
The
Supreme
Court
in
Vishaka
and
others
v.
State
of
Rajasthan 1997 (6) SCC 241 and
Appeal Export Promotion Council vs.
A.K. Chopra AIR 1999 SC 625 has
upheld the Disciplinary action in cases of
sexual harassment.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that no opportunity of
hearing was given to the petitioner before
passing the impugned order and the said
order was punitive. In our opinion the
Rules of natural justice are not a
straitjacket formula as held in several
decisions of the Supreme Court. In our
opinion adequate opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner, as is evident
from the paragraphs 5,15,17,29,31 and 41
of the supplementary counter affidavit in
which full details have been given. The
petitioner has attended the proceedings of
the Committee on 29.1.2002 and 1.2.2002
and the minutes were duly signed by him
as stated in paragraph 15 of the
supplementary counter affidavit. There is
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] U.P. Udyog Vyapar Pratinidhi Mandal and others V. State of U.P. and others 143
no reason for disbelieving the complaint
of Smt. Anita Mehta and we are of the
opinion that her complaint, copy of which
is Annexure SCA-7 to the Supplementary
counter affidavit, is factually correct. As
stated
in
paragraph
35
of
the
supplementary
counter
affidavit,
the
management did not hold a full fledged
disciplinary proceedings as that would
have caused further embarrassment to the
lady officer who was already suffering
from mental trauma. The enquiry held by
the respondents in our opinion was
adequate. Rules of natural justice are
flexible and depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case, vide Hira
Nath Misra v. Principal, AIR 1973 SC
1260. On the facts of the present case
opportunity of hearing was given to the
petitioner and in sufficient compliance of
the Rules of natural justice, considering
the fact that it is a case of sexual
harassment. In fact the Bank has acted
leniently by only ordering compulsory
retirement instead of dismissal which the
petitioner deserves.

10. An Apparel Export Promotion
Council v. A.K. Chopra (supra) the
Supreme Court held that in a case of
sexual harassment for the offending
action to be outrageous actual assault or
touch by the offender is not essential.
Objectionable
overtures
with
sexual
overtone is enough.

The facts, of the aforesaid case
squarely applies to the present case. The
petitioner's
remarks
were
clearly
outrageous and had sexual overtones.
Moreover, this is not a fit case to exercise
our discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD FEBRUARY 7, 2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH KRISHNA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42320 of 2002

Uttar Pradesh Udyog Vyapar Pratinidhi
Mandal and others
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Subodh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.P. Singh
Sri Bhagwati Prasad
Sri S.S. Upadhyaya
Mr. Sadhna Upadhyaya

Constitution of India, Article 226 read
with section 142 of U.P. Kshetriya
Panchayat Adhiniyam 1961- bye laws
from for realization of fees and tolls-
never published in well known popular
news paper as required under section
239 read with 242(2)- fee realized
against the facility of drinking water,
first aid, treatment at the place of load
and unloading the articles- without
providing such facility the toll tax cannot
be realized.

Held- para 12
The Zila Panchayat has failed to establish
that it is providing any service either
directly or remotely to the persons from
whom it is realizing the impugned fee.
There is total lack of element of quid pro
quo. Hence the levy in question is not a
fee but tax in nature.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.)

1. These are four writ petitions. The
controversy
involved
in
all
the