# Km. Sunita Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 2103
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-20
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 9112 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-sunita-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54490
- **Pages:** 23

## Text

_Characters 0–39,743 of 75,389. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39743 for what follows._

4 All. Km. Sunita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2103
 (C)The plaintiffs are entitled to get damages for the cost of escalation for establishing the
factory on the disputed plot due to inflation amounting to ₹ 5 lakhs with pendentilite and future
interest @ 6% per annum, till its payment by the defendant.

 (D)The defendants are further directed to deliver the sanctioned building plan dated
27.2.1998 regarding the disputed plot to the plaintiffs, for enabling them to construct the factory on
the disputed plot.

 (E)The plaintiffs are also entitled to costs of the suit and the appeal.

 (F) The plaintiffs are also entitled to exemplary costs of ₹ 2 lakh from the defendants
under Section 35 CPC, for the harassment, suffering, pain and agony caused to them, in pursuing
this litigation.

 (G) The defendants are directed to handover the vacant and physical possession of the
disputed plot to the plaintiffs and further pay the damages etc. within a period of one month from
today, failing which, the plaintiffs will be entitled to claim them through Court, by initiating
execution proceedings.

62. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary,
Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow for information and necessary action.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 2103
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 9112 of 2025

Km. Sunita Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether recommendations of the Internal Complaint Committee made in terms of Section 13(3) of the
Act of 2013 are mandatory or directory?
(b) Whether the impugned orders of suspension from service are in consonance with Rule 4 of UP
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1999?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999: Rule 4, 7; Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013: Section
11, 13(4) - On 27.07.2025, an official complaint detailing severe allegations of prolonged sexual harassment
was lodged by a newly promoted Sales Tax Officer against another departmental officer (the delinquent).
2104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Acting under the Act of 2013, the state administration immediately constituted an Internal Complaints
Committee (ICC) on 28.07.2025, appointing the petitioners as members.
By a letter dated 29.07.2025, the Joint Commissioner (Establishment) strictly directed the ICC to complete
proceedings and submit its final report within the same day. The ICC recorded statements from the
complainant, the delinquent, and various witnesses. On 31.07.2025, the ICC submitted a report entirely
exonerating the delinquent, concluding that his problematic actions did not explicitly fall under the statutory
definition of "sexual harassment."(Para 48)
Following the exoneration, on 02.08.2025, the complainant submitted a pen drive containing an audio
recording of the actual ICC proceedings to the state authorities. She alleged that the committee members
exhibited blatant hostility and acted in a hyper-partisan manner to actively shield the perpetrator. On
03.08.2025, the state suspended the delinquent employee despite the ICC's clearance. Concurrently, via
impugned administrative orders dated 05.08.2025 and 06.08.2025, the state placed the petitioners (the ICC
members) under suspension from service in contemplation of full-scale departmental disciplinary inquiries for
structural bias and misconduct.

B.(i) Rule of purposive interpretation - A statute or a provision must be construed w.r.t. its
intent, which is meaningful and fulfills the object and purport of such intention. The doctrine also
indicates that meaning of words used in a provision is required to be comprehended to advance the purpose
of object and to remedy the mischief, if any, which it sought to remedy. Context includes reading the statute
or the provision as a whole with the surrounding circumstances so that its intention is in consonance with the
policy in order to give it a meaningful object. (Para 30, 31)

In the present case it transpires that the intent of legislature and the wordings of the Act confer complete
power upon the complaints committee not only to inquire into the complaint of sexual harassment but also to
make its recommendations in terms of Ss. 13 and 14 of the Act of 2013 which are required to be complied
with by the employer or the district officer, treating such a recommendation to be a misconduct. Section 26
(1)(b) of the Act also imposes penalty upon the employer for non-compliance of recommendations made by
the complaint committee. Provision of appeal in Section 18 of the Act has been provided only against the
recommendations of the complaints committee and not against action taken by the employer in terms thereof.
(Para 32)

To give a meaningful object to the Act of 2013 so that it ensures a smooth and harmonious working and is
also reasonable, it can thus be deduced from the aforesaid provision that the recommendations made by
the complaints committee u/s 13 or 14 of the Act of 2013 are mandatory in nature and not
merely recommendatory or directory. (Para 33)

(ii) Discrepancy in language used in Section 12(3) r/w Section 13 of the Act - No doubt u/s 12(3), it
has been directed that the employer shall implement recommendations made u/s 12(1) of the Act with the
said words missing in Section 13 of the Act but nonetheless in view of surrounding circumstances, pertaining
to appeal u/s 18 only from the recommendations of complaints committee and penalty clause u/s 26(1)(b),
the nature of report submitted by committee u/Ss 13 and 14 of the Act are conclusive and require
implementation by the employer without any further action contemplated. (Para 34)

The report submitted by complaints committee although indicated as recommendation,
nonetheless is held to be mandatory in nature. (Para 35)

C. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999, clearly prescribes that suspension of an employee can be resorted
to in contemplation of departmental inquiry provided the charges levelled against the delinquent
are serious enough to merit major penalty. (Para 45)
4 All. Km. Sunita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2105
It is evident that petitioners have been suspended from service pending departmental proceedings on the
allegation that they made a concerted effort to exonerate the delinquent by not following their duties and
responsibilities. (Para 41, 43, 46, 47)

C.(i) Disciplinary action for exercise of quasi judicial power - Where a prima facie finding of
misconduct is recorded, departmental proceedings can ensue.

The possibility on a given set of facts to arrive at a different conclusion is not a ground to indite
a judicial officer for taking one view. The correctness or legality of the decision cannot be a
ground to proceed departmentally against a person exercising quasi judicial power and it is only
the conduct in discharge of duties which can form the basis. The law encapsulated is that judicial
authorities have freedom to record and pass judgments as per material available before them in a free and
impartial manner for which they cannot be proceeded against unless there is a prime facie material to show
recklessness or misconduct in the discharge of such duty which is unbecoming of the post which is being held.
The same would be applicable in case if such person has acted in order to unduly favour a party or is actuated
by corrupt motive. (Para 49, 51, 54, 56)

Applicability - Since the Internal Complaints or Local Committee exercises quasi-judicial powers and is
expected to make its recommendations in a free, fair and impartial manner placing reliance on evidence
available before them, the aforesaid principle would be squarely applicable. (Para 55)

C.(ii) The impugned orders of suspension have not made any differentiation between the
correctness or legality of the decision vis-a-vis conduct of the petitioners in discharge of their
duty as members of the committee. The order impugned have been passed without forming any prima
facie satisfaction, is clearly cursory in nature and does not indicate any application of mind. (Para 63, 65, 67)

Before proceeding departmentally against any such quasi-judicial power, it is incumbent and
imperative upon the disciplinary authority to record a prima facie satisfaction w.r.t. such
misconduct in discharge of such quasi-judicial duty which is required to be separated from the
correctness or legality of the decision or recommendation as in the present case. (Para 57, 58, 64)

A prima facie satisfaction is imperative for the free, fair and impartial decision by the quasijudicial authority particularly to ensure that such a quasi-judicial authority does not have the Sword of
Damocles hanging over them to be proceeded against departmentally in case their recommendations do not
find favour with the authorities. In case such quasi-judicial authorities conduct proceedings under such fear, it
would obviate the very purpose of the act itself and therefore it is essential that such quasi-judicial authorities
as the internal complaints or the local committees act without such a fear. (Para 59, 60)

While this court lauds stand of State Government and there can be no gainsaying that aspect of sexual
harassment in the workplace is required to be nipped in the bud by preventive and corrective steps being
taken, at the same time it is also essential that the proceedings of the Internal Complaints or the
Local Committee should be fair, transparent and without any aspect of fear or favour in the
minds of the members of a committee. (Para 61)

Present proceedings pertained only to suspension of service of petitioners and not the initiation of disciplinary
proceedings by issuance of charge-sheet and therefore, the impugned orders are required to be
decided in terms of provisions of Rule 4 of Rules of 1999. Proviso to sub-section (1) thereof clearly
indicates the conditions under which a government servant can be placed under suspension. The said
proviso stipulates that suspension should not be resorted to unless allegations so serious that in
the event of being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty. (Para 62)

D. U/Rule 7 of the Rules of 2013, the manner of inquiry into complaint has been delineated with
a time frame also being indicated, which appears to have been completely ignored by the
2106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opposite parties while constituting the committee vide order dated 28.07.2025 in which the direction of
state government has been indicated to the committee that it should submit its report on the same day itself.
(Para 66)

The impugned orders dated 05.08.2025 and 06.08.2025 are quashed, granting liberty to authority to pass
orders afresh, in accordance with observations and directions. (Para 67)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Union of India & others Vs. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286 (Para 7)
2. P.C. Joshi Vs. State of U.P. & others, (2001) 6 SCC 491 (Para 7)
3. Krishna Prasad Verma Vs. State Of Bihar & Others, (2019) 10 SCC 640 (Para 7)
4. Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P & Another, (2020) 11 SCC 760 (Para 7)
5. Amresh Srivastava Vs. State Of M.P & Others, (2025) SCC Online 693 (Para 7)
6. Nirbhay Singh Suliya Vs. State of M.P & another, Civil Appeal no. 40 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No.
24570 of 2024) (Para 7)
7. Union of India and Others Vs. KK Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56 (Para 14)
8. Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar Vs. Union of India and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 409 (Para 14)
9. Union of India And Another Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 (Para 14)
10. State of Orissa Vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126 (Para 14)
11. May George Vs. Special Tehsildar and others, (2010) 13 SCC 98 (Para 29)
12. Vivek Narayan Sharma and others (Demonetisation Case-5 J.) Vs. UOI and others, (2023) 3 SCC 1 (Para
30)
13. X Vs. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and
another, (2023) 9 SCC 433 (Para 31)
14. R.R. Parekh Vs. High Court of Gujarat, 2016 (14) SCC 1 (Para 52)

List of Acts
 U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999; Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

List of Keywords
 service, sexual harassment, quasi, judicial, prima facie, satisfaction, misconduct, disciplinary, suspension,
committee, purposive interpretation, mandatory.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner(s): Sharad Pathak
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Sharad Pathak learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Priya Singh learned
counsel for petitioner and Mr. S.M. Singh Royekwar learned Additional Advocate General assisted
by Mr. Akash Sinha learned state counsel for opposite parties.

2. Writ A No. 9112 of 2025 and writ A No. 9114 of 2025 having the same cause of action
had earlier been consolidated and are being adjudicated upon by this common judgment and order.

3. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 5th August 2025 and 6th August 2025
whereby petitioners have been suspended from service in contemplation of departmental inquiries.
4 All. Km. Sunita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2107
4. It is submitted that upon a complaint being made on 27th July 2025 regarding allegation
of sexual harassment against another officer (hereinafter referred to as the delinquent) under
provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)
Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 2013') an Internal Complaints Committee was
constituted on 28th July 2025 with petitioners being included as members thereof. Vide letter dated
29th July 2025, the Joint Commissioner (Establishment) directed the committee to submit its report
within the same day. In terms of the aforesaid directions, proceedings under the Act of 2013 were
initiated and statement of complainant, of the delinquent employee and other witnesses were
recorded on the same date on 27th July 2025. Application was submitted by the delinquent seeking
time to give a reply for which a day's time was granted and was subsequently submitted on 30th
July 2025. On the basis of aforesaid proceedings, the committee submitted its report dated 31st July
2025 exonerating the delinquent whereafter the delinquent employee was placed under suspension
from service vide order dated 3rd August 2025 and subsequently vide impugned orders, the
petitioners who were members of the Internal Complaints Committee were also suspended from
service pending departmental proceedings.

5. It is submitted that as per the Act of 2013, the report submitted by Internal Complaints
Committee was only recommendatory in nature and was subject either to acceptance or rejection by
the head of the department. It is submitted that the impugned order does not advert as to whether
the said report was ever rejected by the head of department and a perusal of impugned order will
also reveal that there is no specific or even prima facie satisfaction recorded that any deliberate
attempt was made by the entire committee for absolving the delinquent. Learned counsel further
submits that even otherwise the impugned order is against provisions of Rule 4 of the U.P.
Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999 inasmuch as the proceedings may not
result in any major penalty.

6. It is also submitted that initiation of departmental inquiry only on the basis of report
submitted by the committee sets a very dangerous precedent since it may have the consequence of
such committees being compelled to submit a tailor made report as per wishes of employer instead
of an impartial one.

7. Learned counsel further submits that it is settled law that a quasi-judicial authority
should not be proceeded against departmentally merely on the basis of opinion submitted by it
since it has larger implications with regard to fairness of proceedings. It is submitted that pressure
exerted upon the committee is evident from the order constituting the committee indicating a report
to be submitted within one day although Rule 7 of the Rules of 2013 framed under the Act clearly
stipulate a timeline for conclusion of said proceedings. Learned counsel has placed reliance on
following judgments to buttress his submissions:-

Union of India & others Vs. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286; P.C. Joshi Vs. State of U.P. &
others (2001) 6 SCC 491; Krishna Prasad Verma Vs. State Of Bihar & Others (2019) 10 SCC 640;
Sadhna Chaudhary v. State of U.P & Another (2020) 11 SCC 760; Amresh Srivastava Vs. State Of
M.P & Others (2025) SCC Online 693; Nirbhay Singh Suliya v. State of M.P & another, Civil
Appeal no. 40 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 24570 of 2024
2108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. Mr. S. M. Singh, Royekwar learned counsel appearing on behalf of state has refuted
submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that the complainant was
promoted as a Sales Tax Officer on 27th February 2025 whereafter the delinquent contacted her on
phone even before she joined and after facing multiple episodes of sexual harassment by the
delinquent, she was able to muster courage to lodge a formal complaint on 27th July 2025. Taking
cognizance of the said complaint, the state government directed Commissioner (State Tax) to
submit his report. Directions for constitution of the internal complaints committee were also issued.

9. It is submitted that the committee thereafter required Smt. Vibha Pandey, Joint
Commissioner (Executive) to submit her testimony regarding the allegations. The said lady vide
letter dated 30th July 2025 unequivocally accepted the fact that the complainant had earlier as well
reported her harassment by the delinquent.

10. Learned counsel submits that in its report dated 31st July 2025, the committee has
exonerated the delinquent ignoring testimony of Smt. Vibha Pandey and by taking into account the
testimony of irrelevant witnesses. It is further submitted that subsequently on 2nd August 2025, the
complainant presented an audio recording of the proceedings of committee and submitted the same
through a pen drive as she apprehended an incorrect recommendation judging by the hostile
conduct of members of the committee. He submits that it is in pursuance thereof that taking true
version of the proceedings of committee as available in the audio, recommendation for suspension
of the members of committee was made on 3rd August 2025 whereafter impugned orders have
been passed.

11. Learned counsel submits that there was a deliberate and intentional effort on the part of
members of the committee to exonerate the delinquent employee since the committee has
conveniently disregarded the written testimony of Smt. Vibha Pandey, Joint Commissioner
(Executive).

12. Learned counsel has further submitted that members of committee themselves were
privy to the conduct of delinquent and had the opportunity to know about the sexual harassment
being faced by complainant on multiple previous occasions but despite having such knowledge, the
members of committee acted in a partisan manner and proceeded to protect the delinquent. He
therefore submits that it is in view of such efforts to exonerate the delinquent employee that
disciplinary proceedings have been resorted to and is not only on the basis of decision taken by the
committee.

13. He submits that disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against officers even if the
conduct is an exercise of quasi-judicial powers and that courts should not ordinarily interfere with
an order of suspension which in the present case is justified considering gravity of charges. It is
submitted that in case the delinquents are permitted to join in the same office, it may result in
mischief and tampering of evidence.

14. Learned counsel has further submitted that Section 13(4) of the Act of 2013 mandates
that the employer or the district officer shall act upon the recommendation within 60 days of its
receipt and therefore the recommendation of the committee would be mandatory in nature. He
4 All. Km. Sunita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2109
further submits that it is the prerogative of the employer to discipline the workforce and incidents
of sexual harassment should not go unpunished. Any attempt to protect such perpetrators should be
dealt with in an exemplary manner to ensure deterrence. Learned counsel has also adverted to
paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit to indicate discrepancies in the conduct of proceedings by the
committee to submit that such discrepancies clearly indicated a deliberate attempt on the part of
members of the committee to protect the delinquent employee. He submits that report with regard
to preliminary inquiry against petitioners has already been produced in sealed cover before this
court. Learned counsel has placed reliance on following judgments to buttress his case:-

Union of India and Others Versus KK Dhawan, (1993) 2 SCC 56; Zunjarrao Bhikaji
Nagarkar Versus Union of India and Others, (1999) 7 SCC 409; Union of India And Another
Versus Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147 and State of Orissa Versus Bimal Kumar
Mohanty, (1994) 4 SCC 126

15. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal
of material on record, the questions which are required to be adjudicated upon are, therefore, as
follows:-

 A) Whether recommendations of the Internal Complaint Committee made in terms of
Section 13(3) of the Act of 2013 are mandatory or directory?

 B) Whether the impugned orders of suspension from service are in consonance with Rule
4 of UP Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules of 1999"

Answer regarding question No. A

16. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal
of material on record, for purposes of adjudication of this question, provisions of Sections 11, 13,
18 and 26 require examination along with Rules 7 and 9 of the Rules of 2013 framed under this
Act.

17. The provisions are as follows:-

 Section 11

 " 11. Inquiry into complaint. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 10, the Internal
Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall, where the respondent is an
employee, proceed to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the
service rules applicable to the respondent and where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be
prescribed or in case of a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, if prima facie case exist,
forward the complaint to the police, within a period of seven days for registering the case under
section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and any other relevant provisions of the said
Code where applicable:
2110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 Provided that where the aggrieved woman informs the Internal Committee or the Local
Committee, as the case may be, that any term or condition of the settlement arrived at under subsection (2) of section 10 has not been complied with by the respondent, the Internal Committee or
the Local Committee shall proceed to make an inquiry into the complaint or, as the case may be,
forward the complaint to the police:

 Provided further that where both the parties are employees, the parties shall, during the
course of inquiry, be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the findings shall be made
available to both the parties enabling them to make representation against the findings before the
Committee.

 (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), the court may, when the respondent is convicted of the offence, order payment of such sums
as it may consider appropriate, to the aggrieved woman by the respondent, having regard to the
provisions of section 15.

 (3) For the purpose of making an inquiry under sub-section (1), the Internal Committee or
the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of the following
matters, namely:-

 (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath,

 (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and

 (c) any other matter which may be prescribed.

 (4) The inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of ninety days."

 Section 13

 "13. Inquiry report (1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal
Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the
employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period of ten days from the date of
completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties.

 (2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at
the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend
to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter.

 (3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at
the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to
the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be-
4 All. Km. Sunita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2111
 (i) to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the
provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent or where no such service rules have
been made, in such manner as may be prescribed;

 (ii) to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent,
from the salary or wages of the respondent such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid to
the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions
of section 15:

 Provided that in case the employer is unable to make such deduction from the salary of
the respondent due to his being absent from duty or cessation of employment it may direct to the
respondent to pay such sum to the aggrieved woman:

 Provided further that in case the respondent fails to pay the sum referred to in clause (ii),
the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may forward the order for
recovery of the sum as an arrear of land revenue to the concerned District Officer.

 (4) The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty
days of its receipt by him."

Section 18

 "18. Appeal. - (1) Any person aggrieved from the recommendations made under subsection (2) of section 13 or under clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 13 or subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 14 or section 17 or non-implementation of such
recommendations may prefer an appeal to the court or tribunal in accordance with the provisions
of the service rules applicable to the said person or where no such service rules exist then, without
prejudice to provisions contained in any other law for the time being in force, the person aggrieved
may prefer an appeal in such manner as may be prescribed.

 (2) The appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within a period of ninety days of
the recommendations."

 Section 26

 "26. Penalty for non-compliance with provisions of Act (1) Where the employer fails to-

 (a) constitute an Internal Committee under sub-section (1) of section 4;

 (b) take action under sections 13, 14 and 22; and

 (c) contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets contravention of other provisions of
this Act or any rules made thereunder,
2112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees.
(2) If any employer, after having been previously convicted of an offence punishable under this Act
subsequently commits and is convicted of the same offence, he shall be liable to-

 (i) twice the punishment, which might have been imposed on a first conviction, subject to
the punishment being maximum provided for the same offence: Provided that in case a higher
punishment is prescribed under any other law for the time being in force, for the offence for which
the accused is being prosecuted, the court shall take due cognizance of the same while awarding
the punishment;

 (ii) cancellation, of his licence or withdrawal, or non-renewal, or approval, or
cancellation of the registration, as the case may be, by the Government or local authority required
for carrying on his business or activity."

Rule 7

 "7. Manner of inquiry into complaint. (1) Subject to the provisions of section 11, at the
time of filing the complaint, the complainant shall submit to the Complaints Committee, six copies
of the complaint along with supporting documents and the names and addresses of the witnesses.

 (2) On receipt of the complaint, the Complaints Committee shall send one of the copies
received from the aggrieved woman under sub-rule (1) to the respondent within a period of seven
working days.

 (3) The respondent shall file his reply to the complaints along with his list of documents,
and names and addresses of witnesses, within a period not exceeding ten working days from the
date of receipt of the documents specified under sub-rule (1).

 (4) The Complaints Committee shall make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with
the principles of natural justice.

 (5) The Complaints Committee shall have the right to terminate the inquiry proceedings
or to give an ex-parte decision on the complaint, if the complainant or respondent fails, within
sufficient cause to present herself or himself for three consecutive hearings convened by the
Chairperson or President Officer, as the case may be:

 Provided that such termination or ex parte order may not be passed without giving a
notice in writing, fifteen days in advance, to the party concerned.

 (6) The parties shall not be allowed to bring in any legal practitioner to represent them in
their case at any stage of the proceedings before the Complaints Committee

 (7) In conducing the inquiry, a minimum of three Members of the Complaints Committee
including the President Officer or the Chairperson, as the case may be, shall be present."
4 All. Km. Sunita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2113
 Rule 9

 "9. Manner of taking action for sexual harassment.-Except in cases where service rules
exist, where the Complaints Committee arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the
respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case
may be, to take any action including a written apology, warning, reprimand or censure,
withholding of promotion, withholding of pay rise or increments, terminating the respondent from
service or undergoing a counselling session or carrying out community service."

18. Section 11 of the Act of 2013 pertains to inquiry into complaint with sub section (1)
indicating that the inquiry contemplated therein is to be in accordance with provisions of service
rules applicable upon the delinquent or in case of absence of such rules, in such manner as may be
prescribed. The Local Committee has also been granted a power to forward the complaint to police
for registering case under Section 509 IPC, if prima facie case exists.

19. Section 11 (3) of the Act of 2013 indicates that Internal Committee or the Local
Committee, as the case may be, for purposes of making an inquiry, shall have the same powers as
vested in civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 pertaining to summoning, enforcing
attendance and examination of any person, requiring discovery and production of documents and
any other matter.

20. Section 13 pertains to the inquiry report with Section 13(3)(i) granting powers to the
Internal Committee or the Local Committee to recommend to the employer or the district officer to
take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with provisions of service rules or
in such manner as may be prescribed, where no such service rules have been made.

21. Thus the aforesaid provision indicates that upon submission of inquiry report, the only
power vested in the employer or the district officer is to treat the sexual harassment as a misconduct
in case the report is against the delinquent and to act in accordance with provisions of the service
rules or in such manner as may be prescribed.

22. A conjoint reading of Sections 11 and 13 of the Act of 2013 therefore is indicative that
once the inquiry has been conducted in terms of Section 11 of the Act of 2013, no further inquiry is
contemplated under Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1999
which are applicable in the present case or even under any other service rules which may be
applicable. The aforesaid sections also indicate that in case a report is submitted against the
delinquent, the employer is vested only with the power to take action against the delinquent in
accordance with provisions of service rules or as may be prescribed, treating the sexual harassment
as a misconduct.

23. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2013 made in terms of the Act of 2013 contemplates the manner
of inquiry into complaint and is analogous to the nature and procedure of inquiry contemplated
under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1999.
2114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24. Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules of 2013 indicate the manner of taking action for sexual
harassment and confers power upon the complaints committee to recommend the nature and type of
action which is to be taken by the employer or the district officer including termination of such
employee.

25. It is thus evident from perusal of aforesaid provisions that the nature of inquiry to be
conducted into a complaint of sexual harassment by the Internal Committee or the Local
Committee in terms of Sections 11, 13 read with rules 7 and 9 of the Rules is conclusive in nature,
which does not warrant any further proceedings except for the employer to punish the delinquent
employee treating such sexual harassment as a misconduct. The Act does not contemplate any
further inquiry at the behest of the employer or the district officer concerned.

26. It is also relevant that Section 18(1) of the Act of 2013 provides for an appeal only
against the recommendations made by the committee under Sections 13, 14, 17 or non
implementation of the recommendations.

27. It is relevant that there is no appeal provided from any order or action taken by the
employer or the district officer as the case may be.

28. Section 26(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 also provides for a penalty in case the employer
fails to take action under Sections 13, 14, and 22. The aforesaid provisions again pertain to
recommendations made by the committee under Sections 13 and 14 and for the employer to include
information in annual report in terms of Section 22 of the Act.

29. The aspect of whether such provisions can be held to be mandatory or merely directory
would therefore also require consideration which has been enunciated upon by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of May George versus Special Tehsildar and others (2010) 13 SCC 98 in the
following manner:-

 "25. The law on this issue can be summarised to the effect that in order to declare a
provision mandatory, the test to be applied is as to whether non-compliance with the provision
could render the entire proceedings invalid or not. Whether the provision is mandatory or
directory, depends upon the intent of the legislature and not upon the language for which the intent
is clothed. The issue is to be examined having regard to the context, subject-matter and object of
the statutory provisions in question. The Court may find out as to what would be the consequence
which would flow from construing it in one way or the other and as to whether the statute provides
for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions and as to whether the non-compliance
is visited by small penalty or serious consequence would flow therefrom and as to whether a
particular interpretation would defeat or frustrate the legislation and if the provision is mandatory,
the act done in breach thereof will be invalid."

30. The aforesaid aspect signifies that a statute or a provision must be construed with
regard to its intent, which is meaningful and fulfills the object and purport of such intention. The
doctrine also indicates that meaning of words used in a provision is required to be comprehended to
advance the purpose of object and to remedy the mischief, if any, which it sought to remedy.
4 All. Km. Sunita Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2115
Context includes reading the statute or the provision as a whole with the surrounding circumstances
so that its intention is in consonance with the policy in order to give it a meaningful object.
Aforesaid proposition has been enunciated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vivek Narayan
Sharma and others (Demonetisation Case-5 J.) v. Union of India and others reported in (2023) 3
SCC 1 in the following manner:-

 "137. A statute must be construed having regard to the legislative intent. It has to be
meaningful. A construction which leads to manifest absurdity must not be preferred to a
construction which would fulfil the object and purport of the legislative intent"

 "148. It is thus clear that it is a settled principle that the modern approach of
interpretation is a pragmatic one, and not pedantic An interpretation which advances the purpose
of the Act and which ensures its smooth and harmonious working must be chosen and the other
which leads to absurdity, or confusion, or friction or contradiction and conflict between its various
provisions, or undermines, or tends to defeat or destroy the basic scheme and purpose of the
enactment must be eschewed The primary and foremost task of the Court in interpreting a statute is
to gather the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. Having ascertained the intention, it is
the duty of the Court to strive to so interpret the statute as to promote or advance the object and
purpose of the enactment. For this purpose, where necessary, the Court may even depart from the
rule that plain words should be interpreted according to their plain meaning. There need be no
meek and mute submission to the plainness of the language. To avoid patent injustice, anomaly or
absurdity or to avoid invalidation of a law, the court would be justified in departing from the socalled golden rule of construction so as to give effect to the object and purpose of the enactment.
Ascertainment of legislative intent is the basic rule of statutory construction"

31. Similarly, in the case of X v. Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare
Department, Government of NCT of Delhi and another reported in (2023) 9 SCC 433, the Rule of
purposive interpretation has been indicated as follows:-

 "31. The cardinal principle of the construction of statutes is to identify the intention of the
legislature and the true legal meaning of the enactment.