# CASE DETAILS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 975
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-11-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6190 of 2023
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-union-of-india-and-others-v-dilip-paul-36635
- **Pages:** 100

## Headnote

Issues for consideration:

In an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the High
Court by which it allowed the writ petition fi led by respondent and thereby
set aside the order of penalty of withholding of 50% of his pension for all
times to come, imposed upon the respondent in connection with disciplinary
proceedings initiated against him on allegations of a lady employee of sexual
harassment at workplace, the following questions arose for consideration:-
I. Whether the Central Complaints Committee constituted by the
Competent authority to inquire into the fi rst complaint dated 30.08.2011
committed error in looking into the second complaint dated 18.09.2012
containing additional allegations against the respondent alongwith few other
documents including anonymous complaints made against the respondent
in October 2011;
II. Whether the Central Complaints Committee erred in assuming the
role of a prosecutor by putting questions to the witnesses in the course of
departmental enquiry and thereby vitiating the disciplinary proceedings; and
III. Whether the Central Complaints Committee could be said to have
based its fi ndings on mere conjectures and surmises and the case on hand
was one of "No Evidence"
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Standing Order No. 1 of 2006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
474
(Grievances Redressal Mechanism: To Redress Grievances of Women/
Sexual Harassment at Work Place) - Clauses 9 and 10(i) - Sexual
harassment at workplace - Lady employee lodged complaint against
respondent and subsequently submitted another (second) complaint
containing additional allegations against respondent alongwith few
other documents including anonymous complaints made against the
respondent - Central Complaint Committee, constituted to inquire
into the fi rst complaint, also looked into the second complaint - High
Court held that the Central Complaints Committee was constituted
by the competent authority to only inquire into the fi rst complaint -
Correctness of.
Held: Irrespective of whether a prior complaint had already been made
to any authority, a complaint regarding sexual harassment could be made
under Clause 10(i) of the 2006 Standing Order to the complaints committee
as-well - In the instant case, the second complaint had been promptly
preferred right after the Central Complaints Committee was constituted and
duly before its fi rst hearing - The High Court's reasoning that as the Central
Complaints Committee was constituted on the basis of the fi rst complaint,
its scope of inquiry was restricted to its content, is completely erroneous
inasmuch as the Central Complaints Committee owed its existence to the
2006 Standing Order and not to the complaint - Moreover, even if it is
assumed for a moment that the complaints committee owed its existence to
the complaint, Clause 10(i) of the 2006 Standing Order envisages fi ling of
a complaint to the complaints committee i.e., it envisages a situation where
after a complaints committee had come into existence, a complaint may be
preferred to it - In sensitive matters such as sexual harassment & misconduct,
there is an obligation to look into the entire evidence of the complainant
that inspires confi dence - It would be quite preposterous to hold that the
complainant was precluded from making the second complaint before the
Central Complaints Committee merely because she had already made one
complaint - In the context of the second complaint, the only relevant aspect
that required consideration was whether any serious prejudice was caused to
the respondent - On facts, no prejudice could be said to have been caused
to the respondent even if one believes that he was not asked to plead guilty
to the second complaint - High Court mechanically proceeded to set-aside
475
the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground
that there was nothing to indicate that the respondent was asked wheth

## Text

_Characters 0–39,881 of 214,419. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39881 for what follows._

[2023] 13 S.C.R. 473 : 2023 INSC 975
473
CASE DETAILS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
V.
DILIP PAUL
(Civil Appeal No. 6190 of 2023)
NOVEMBER 06, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issues for consideration:

In an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the High
Court by which it allowed the writ petition fi led by respondent and thereby
set aside the order of penalty of withholding of 50% of his pension for all
times to come, imposed upon the respondent in connection with disciplinary
proceedings initiated against him on allegations of a lady employee of sexual
harassment at workplace, the following questions arose for consideration:-
I. Whether the Central Complaints Committee constituted by the
Competent authority to inquire into the fi rst complaint dated 30.08.2011
committed error in looking into the second complaint dated 18.09.2012
containing additional allegations against the respondent alongwith few other
documents including anonymous complaints made against the respondent
in October 2011;
II. Whether the Central Complaints Committee erred in assuming the
role of a prosecutor by putting questions to the witnesses in the course of
departmental enquiry and thereby vitiating the disciplinary proceedings; and
III. Whether the Central Complaints Committee could be said to have
based its fi ndings on mere conjectures and surmises and the case on hand
was one of "No Evidence"
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Standing Order No. 1 of 2006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
474
(Grievances Redressal Mechanism: To Redress Grievances of Women/
Sexual Harassment at Work Place) - Clauses 9 and 10(i) - Sexual
harassment at workplace - Lady employee lodged complaint against
respondent and subsequently submitted another (second) complaint
containing additional allegations against respondent alongwith few
other documents including anonymous complaints made against the
respondent - Central Complaint Committee, constituted to inquire
into the fi rst complaint, also looked into the second complaint - High
Court held that the Central Complaints Committee was constituted
by the competent authority to only inquire into the fi rst complaint -
Correctness of.
Held: Irrespective of whether a prior complaint had already been made
to any authority, a complaint regarding sexual harassment could be made
under Clause 10(i) of the 2006 Standing Order to the complaints committee
as-well - In the instant case, the second complaint had been promptly
preferred right after the Central Complaints Committee was constituted and
duly before its fi rst hearing - The High Court's reasoning that as the Central
Complaints Committee was constituted on the basis of the fi rst complaint,
its scope of inquiry was restricted to its content, is completely erroneous
inasmuch as the Central Complaints Committee owed its existence to the
2006 Standing Order and not to the complaint - Moreover, even if it is
assumed for a moment that the complaints committee owed its existence to
the complaint, Clause 10(i) of the 2006 Standing Order envisages fi ling of
a complaint to the complaints committee i.e., it envisages a situation where
after a complaints committee had come into existence, a complaint may be
preferred to it - In sensitive matters such as sexual harassment & misconduct,
there is an obligation to look into the entire evidence of the complainant
that inspires confi dence - It would be quite preposterous to hold that the
complainant was precluded from making the second complaint before the
Central Complaints Committee merely because she had already made one
complaint - In the context of the second complaint, the only relevant aspect
that required consideration was whether any serious prejudice was caused to
the respondent - On facts, no prejudice could be said to have been caused
to the respondent even if one believes that he was not asked to plead guilty
to the second complaint - High Court mechanically proceeded to set-aside
475
the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority on the ground
that there was nothing to indicate that the respondent was asked whether
he pleaded guilty to the charges imputed in the second complaint without
applying the principle of "test of prejudice" [Paras 49, 50, 55, 56, 65 and 66]
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Standing Order No. 1 of 2006
(Grievances Redressal Mechanism: To Redress Grievances of Women/
Sexual Harassment at Work Place) - Clause 10(viii) - Sexual harassment
at workplace - Lady employee lodged complaint - Disciplinary
proceedings conducted under Rule 14 of the 1965 CCS Rules - Central
Complaint Committee constituted by the Competent authority to make
inquiry had put questions to the witnesses in a departmental inquiry
- Whether the same vitiated the inquiry proceedings - Service Law -
Central Civil Services (Classifi cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
- r.14 - Disciplinary proceedings - "Fact Finding" Authority.
Held: It is the Inquiry Authority and the Disciplinary Authority who are
the fact fi nding authorities in a disciplinary proceeding - A perusal of r.14
of the 1965 CCS Rules makes it clear that, where a 'Presenting Offi cer' has
been appointed by the Disciplinary Authority, such Offi cer shall present the
case in support of the articles of charge. Conversely, what logically transpires
from the aforesaid is that, where no presenting offi cer has been appointed,
the duty or role to present the case in support of the articles of charge falls
back on the Disciplinary Authority or the Inquiry Authority as the case may
be - The power and discretion of the complaints committee to put question
to the witnesses is further refl ected though implicitly in Clause 10(viii) of
the 2006 Standing Order - There appears to be neither any statutory bar nor
any logic to restrict the power of the complaints committee to put questions
to the witnesses only to the context enumerated in the aforesaid provision
- One fails to understand what other purpose the complaints committee
which is deemed to be an 'inquiry authority' would serve, if it is held that
the complaints committee cannot put questions to the witnesses - If s.165
of the Evidence Act, 1872 permits a Judge to put questions to the parties
or to the witnesses in order to discover or obtain proper proof of relevant
facts and this provision being widely used by the judges throughout the
country, how the complaints committee after being equated with a judge
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
476
in a judicial proceeding can be denied that privilege - High Court was not
correct in taking the view that the proceedings stood vitiated because the
Central Complaints Committee put questions to the prosecution witnesses.
[Paras 69,73,75, 77 and 78]
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Whether the Central Complaints
Committee based its fi ndings on conjectures and surmises - Whether
the instant case is one of "no evidence".
Held: The evidence taken into consideration by the Central Complaints
Committee for arriving at the conclusion that the charges were held to be
proved would indicate that this was not a case of "no evidence" - Some
evidence has come on record to indicate or rather substantiate the allegations
of sexual harassment levelled by the complainant - The allegation related to
the respondent making unsolicited phone calls to the complainant, although
no evidence of the call recordings had been produced to substantiate the
same, was rightly accepted by the Central Complaints Committee keeping
in mind the background of the case - The fi ndings of the Central Complaints
Committee could not be said to be based on conjectures and surmises - The
Central Complaints Committed duly noted that the non-availability of the
call records was owed to the fact that the inquiry into the complainant's
grievances was undertaken after a lapse of signifi cant time - Moreover, said
fi nding is fortifi ed by the oral evidence of one of the witnesses who deposed
that he was aware of the respondent making calls to the complainant. [Paras
94, 95, 96 and 97]
Service Law - Disciplinary inquiry - Standard of Proof.
Held: In a disciplinary inquiry, the standard of proof is preponderance
of probabilities - The courts must only interfere where the fi ndings are either
perverse or based on no evidence at all. [Para 93]
Service Law - Disciplinary proceedings - Scope of judicial review.
Held: It is well settled that when it comes to disciplinary proceedings,
it is the inquiry authority and the disciplinary authority who could be said
to be the fact-fi nding authority and the courts in exercise of their powers of
judicial review should not sit in appeal and re-appreciate the evidence or
477
substitute its own fi ndings - The scope of judicial review of the courts is
limited only to the propriety of the decision-making process and the fairness
of the inquiry procedure. [Para 42]
Doctrines / Principles - Principle of "Test of Prejudice" - In Service
Jurisprudence - Discussed. [Paras 57 and 58]
Doctrines / Principles - Principle of "No Evidence" - In Service
Jurisprudence - Discussed. [Paras 79, 80, 86 and 89]
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Historical Background -
Statutory Scheme - Discussed. [Paras 31-38]
Crime against Women - Sexual harassment - Veracity and
genuineness of complaint should be scrutinised to prevent misuse -
Duty of the courts.
Held: Sexual harassment in any form at the work place must be viewed
seriously - However, the charge of this nature is very easy to make and is very
diffi cult to rebut - When a plea is taken of false implication for extraneous
reasons, the courts have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and
decide the acceptability or otherwise of the accusations - The veracity and
genuineness of the complaint should be scrutinised to prevent any misuse
of such laudable laws enunciated for the upliftment of the society and for
equal rights of people without gender discrimination by anybody under the
garb of "sexual harassment", lest justice rendering system would become
a mockery. [Para 2]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of Haryana and Another v. Rattan Singh (1977) 2 SCC 491;
Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and Others (2020) 9 SCC 471 : [2020] 7
SCR 1078; Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra (1999) 1
SCC 759 : [1999] 1 SCR 117; West Bokaro Colliery (TISCO Ltd.) v. Ram
Pravesh Singh (2008) 3 SCC 729 : [2008] 2 SCR 247; B.C. Chaturvedi v.
Union of India & Ors. (1995) 6 SCC 749 : [1995] 4 Suppl. SCR 644; Union
of India and Others v. Mudrika Singh (2021) 14 SCALE 509 and Managing
Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Others v. B. Karunakar and Others (1993)
4 SCC 727 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 576 - relied on.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
478
Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241
: [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 404; Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v. Union of India
and Others (2013) 1 SCC 297 : [2012] 9 SCR 895; Aureliano Fernandes v.
State of Goa and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 621; State Bank of Patiala
and Others v. S.K. Sharma (1996) 3 SCC 364 : [1996] 3 SCR 972; State of
U.P. v. Harendra Arora and Another (2001) 6 SCC 392 : [2001] 3 SCR 375;
Sakshi v. Union of India and Others (2004) 5 SCC 518 : [2004] 2 Suppl.
SCR 723; State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. S. Sree Rama Rao AIR
1963 SC 1723 : [1964] 3 SCR 25; State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
v. Chitra Venkata Rao (1975) 2 SCC 557 : [1976] 1 SCR 521; Union of
India v. H.C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364 : [1964] 4 SCR 718; R. Mahalingam
v. Chairman, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Another (2013)
14 SCC 379; Vijay Shankar Pandey v. Union of India (2014) 10 SCC 589
: [2014] 13 SCR 1238 - referred to.
Regina v. Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner, Ex parte Moore
(1965) 1 Q.B. 456; The King v. Carson Roberts 1908 (1) K.B., 407; French
Kier Developments Ltd. v. Secretary of State for the Environment 1977 (1)
All ELR 297 and Edward (Inspector of Taxes, Bairstow) (1956) Appeal
Cases, 14 - referred to.
Bernard Schwartz's Treatise on Administrative Law, 1976 Edition, at
page 595 - referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6190 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.05.2019 of the High Court of
Gauhati in WPC No.7876 of 2015.
Appearances:
K. Parmeshwar, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Ms. Vaishali Verma, Ms. Manjula
Gupta, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Avijit Roy, Adv. for the Respondent.
479
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
J. B. PARDIWALA, J.
For the convenience of the exposition, this judgement is divided in the
following parts: -
INDEX*
A. FACTUAL MATRIX ..................................................................................4
A.1 On-Spot/Preliminary Inquiry Report .................................................6
A.2 Frontier Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report ............................9
A.3 Central Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report ...........................10
A.4 Defence of the Respondent ..............................................................23
A.5 Proceedings before the CAT ............................................................23
A.6 Proceedings before the High Court .................................................25
B. IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT .................26
C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT .....................29
D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ..................32
E. ANALYSIS ..................................................................................................37
E.1 Relevant Statutory Scheme and Case Law .............................38
E.2 Whether the Central Complaints Committee could

have looked into the second complaint dated

18.09.2012? ................................................................................65

i) Principle of "Test of Prejudice" in Service

Jurisprudence .............................................................................71
E.3 Whether the Central Complaints Committee could have

put questions to the witnesses in a departmental inquiry?.. .....81

i) "Fact Finding" Authority in Disciplinary Proceedings ........81
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL
*Ed. Note: Pagination in the Index is as per the original judgment.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
480
E.4 Whether the Central Complaints Committee based its

fi ndings on conjectures and surmises? Whether the case

on hand is one of "no evidence"? .......................................87

i) Principle of "No Evidence" in Service Jurisprudence ....87

ii) Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Proceedings ..............95
F. CONCLUSION ........................................................................104
The Registry is directed to anonymize the name of the complainant
in this Judgment, all orders that have been passed as well as in the records
which are publicly available.
1. This appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and others being
the unsuccessful respondents before the High Court and is directed against
the judgement and order dated 15.05.2019 passed by the Gauhati High Court
in Writ Petition (C) No. 7876 of 2015 by which the High Court allowed
the writ petition fi led by the respondent herein (original petitioner) and
thereby set aside the order of penalty of withholding of 50% pension for all
times to come, imposed upon the respondent herein in connection with the
disciplinary proceedings initiated on the allegations of sexual harassment.
2. We are dealing with a litigation relating to sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment in any form at the work place must be viewed seriously
and the harasser should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law.
We say so because the same humiliates and frustrates a victim of sexual
harassment, more particularly when the harasser goes unpunished or is let
off with a relatively minor penalty. However, at the same time, it should be
kept in mind that the charge of this nature is very easy to make and is very
diffi cult to rebut. When a plea is taken of false implication for extraneous
reasons, the courts have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence
and decide the acceptability or otherwise of the accusations. Every care
should be taken to separate the chaff from the grain. The veracity and
genuineness of the complaint should be scrutinised to prevent any misuse
of such laudable laws enunciated for the upliftment of the society and for
equal rights of people without gender discrimination by anybody under the
481
garb of "sexual harassment", lest justice rendering system would become
a mockery. In such circumstances, we have decided to look into this matter
closely and in details.
A. FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The respondent herein was serving as the Area Organizer i.e., the
Local Head of Offi ce of the Service Selection Board (for short, "the SSB"),
Rangia, State of Assam between September, 2006 to May, 2012. In the very
same offi ce, a lady employee was serving as the Field Assistant (Lady)
(hereinafter referred to as the "complainant"). She lodged a complaint
(hereinafter referred to as the "fi rst complaint") addressed to the Inspector
General (for short, "IG"), Frontier Headquarters, Guwahati with one copy
each forwarded to the DG SSB, New Delhi, Dy. IG, SSB, SHQ, Tezpur and
the Chairperson of the National Women Rights Commission, New Delhi
inter alia alleging sexual harassment at the hands of the respondent. The
fi rst complaint dated 30.08.2011 reads thus: -
"To,

The Inspector General,

Frontier Hqrs. SSB Guwahati
Subject: Regarding information of personal grievances thereof.
Hon'ble Sir,
With due respect and humility, I the undersigned to draw your kind
attention to the following matter.
1. I have joined the offi ce of the A.O Rangia in March, 2009, Since
my joining I have been entrusted the task of receiving telephones
and Mobiles in the Control Room, CAP, Training, Sports. Then I
was the only female employee in the Offi ce.
2. Having just started discharging my duties devotedly the AO Mr.
Dilip Paul started teasing me tactically. He started making phone
calls to me sometimes at night using unoffi cial and multimeaninged
word. Even he went to the extent of visiting my residence where
I stay alone with two of my children as my husband is a state
Government employee in Manipur.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
482
3. Sometimes CAP work needs close working with the offi cers. Taking
the advantage he used to call me in his room and started teasing
indirectly and unnecessarily makes me sit for hours. One day he
went to the extent of saying "If you want to work happily in my
offi ce, then agree to my saying.
4. I have been tolerating his acts since the last two and half years. I
could neither inform my husband nor lodge any written complaint
against such acts as it will be diffi cult to give evidence. Unable
to bear the situation I have verbally complaint to the then DIG
Shri S. C. Katoch over Telephone in May, 2010 about Mr. Paul
uncivilized altitude. The DIG did a favour and warned Mr. Paul
of severe consequences if he did not stopped misbehaving.
5. Since then, he stopped teasing but instead began torturing me
mentally. I have not been entrusted any work and ex-communicated
in the offi ce. Throughout the day all I have to do is sit silently in
the offi ce. If any of my colleagues talk with me, Mr. Paul would
immediately call him and scold him bitterly. Sir, I am now so much
depressed and mentally disturbed I have visited to the Doctors
many times for which I have taken many medical leaves. Now, I
am not in position to work even for a day under him. It also began
aff ecting my family life.
6. In view of the above, I request your kind honour to look into the
matter sympathetically and it is also requested to take necessary
action against the Shri D. Paul, AO Rangia to get rid of this
problem as soon as possible for which I shall remain ever grateful
to you.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- 30.8.2011
(Smt. X)
FA (Lady)
A.O. Offi ce, SSB Rangia"
483
A.1 On-Spot/Preliminary Inquiry Report
4. The Dy. IG, SSB, SHQ, Tezpur held a common "on-the-spot"
fact fi nding inquiry in relation to the fi rst complaint dated 30.08.2011
and recorded the statements of the employees working in the offi ce of the
respondent. The respondent was given an opportunity to fi le his reply to the
allegations levelled in the complaints. On 13.12.2011, the "on-the-spot" fact
fi nding inquiry was concluded, and two reports in that regard were submitted
to the IG, Frontier HQ, Guwahati.
a) On the fi rst complaint of sexual harassment, the staff members
stated that they had not seen anything in the offi ce which could be termed
as indirect teasing or harassment to the complainant. The report reads as
under: -
"To
The Inspector General,
Frontier Hqrs. SSB
Guwahati,
Sub: Inquiry on complaints lodged by Smt. X FA(Lady) against
Shri D. Paul, Area Organiser, SSB Rangia.
Sir,

With reference to Ftr. Hqrs. Ghy. letter No. FG-II/VCVIG/08(Part)/15293 dt. 01-09-11, I visited the Offi ce of the Area
Organiser, SSB Rangia on 1st November, 2011 and enquired into the
matter. All the staff available in the offi ce on the date, were summoned
one after another individually, but none of them stated to have seen
or known Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser misbehaving with Smt. X,
FA(Lady) in the offi ce. Further most of them stated that due to reasons
best known to Shri Paul, Area Organiser, she was not allotted with any
work for about 3 months before her release on transfer to Ftr. Hqrs.
Ghy. and hence she was often seen depress.

On the other hand, in his written statement Shri Dilip Paul, Area
Organiser pointed out that she was found even unfi t in any kind of
assignment, and therefore, she was not assigned with any work just
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
484
before her transfer i.e. from 18-08-11. But it is also duty of supervisory
offi cer as administrator and manager to somehow motivate his subordinate staff and take work from them.

In the case of Smt. X, FA(Lady), Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser,
is found to have failed to motivate her and get work from her.

Regarding allegation of tactical and indirect teasing and making
her to sit in the offi ce chamber of Area Organiser, hours together, none
of the staff have stated to have ever seen such situation in the offi ce.

Hence the allegation of direct/indirect teasing and harassments to
Smt. X, FA(L) by Shri Dilip Paul could not be ascertained. However,
since Smt. X referred the case to National Women Rights Commission,
New Delhi the matter may be under investigation by them.
Yours faithfully
Deputy Inspector General
SHQ, SSB, Tezpur"
b) Similarly, as per the report on the anonymous complaints, nothing
substantive was found as regards the allegations. The said report further
noted that during the inquiry the only thing that surfaced was the occasional
rudeness and uncordial inter-personal relations of the respondent with three
of his subordinate employees. Accordingly, the respondent was advised to
improve his personnel management and administration of the offi ce. The
said report reads as under: -
"To
The Inspector General,
Frontier Hqrs. SSB
Guwahati.
Sub: Enquiry report on Anonymous Complaint against Shri D. Paul,
Area Organiser, SSB, Rangia
Sir,
485

With reference to Ftr. Hqrs. Ghy. letter No. FG-II/VC-VIG/08(Part)/5660
dt 08-09-11, I visited Offi ce ·Of the Area Organiser, SSB, Rangia on 1st
November, 2011 and enquired into the matter. All the staff present in the
offi ce on the date, were summoned one after another individually. I obtained
their statements individually and on the basis of the interaction with each
of them; I opine as follow:
i)
From the statements of the staff it is observed that Shri Dilip Paul,
Area Organiser sometimes shout to some of the staff in the offi ce, for
the purpose of offi cial work only. No proof has been found regarding
use of unoffi cial language. One or two offi cial stated that the Area
Organiser used to be rude and shouted at them on some occasions on
matters of offi cial work only.
ii) Regarding passing of TA/DA, MR Bills etc. it is found that these works
are going smoothly. There has been no occasion when he took interest
of passing his own bill by neglecting that of others.
iii) Regarding granting of leave to staff and passing of bills etc. it is found
that no refusal or delay occurred. However, while granting leave
sometimes staff position and administrative convenience has been
taken in to account.
iv) It is observed that Area Organiser is using his own vehicle to attend
offi ce.
v) On the basis of statement given by each staff and from the para-wise
reply given by the Area Organiser, it is observed that there is no evidence
regarding use of unnecessary slang language by the Area Organiser,
to his sub-ordinate staff but at times he used to be rude to get the work
done within the time limit, from some of the subordinate staff .

It is further observed that there is no cordial inter personal relation
between Shri P.B. Gohain, SAO, Shri K. Siga, SAO, Shri J Singh, UDC and
Area Organiser, Shri Dilip Paul. Therefore, these offi cers/offi cials may be
shifted out in order to bring back cordial working atmosphere in the Area
Offi ce. At the same time, Shri Dilip Paul, Area Organiser may be advised
to improve upon his man management, administration and other offi cial
dealings, skills and tactics with his sub-ordinate staff to bring back congenial
atmosphere in the offi ce.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
486
Yours faithfully
Sd/-
Deputy Inspector General
Sector Hqrs. SSB, Tezpur"
A.2 Frontier Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report
5. Simultaneously, a Frontier Complaints Committee comprising of
three women members was constituted by the IG, Frontier HQ, Guwahati to
inquire into the allegations of sexual harassment levelled by the complainant
in her fi rst complaint dated 30.08.2011. The Frontier Complaints Committee
upon completion of the inquiry, submitted its report dated 17.01.2012 to the
Frontier Headquarters SSB, New Delhi through the IG, Guwahati, stating
that the allegations levelled by the complainant could not be said to have
been fully established or proved. The Committee further observed that the
complainant had lodged her fi rst complaint after a delay of more than two
years and had also failed to produce any documentary evidence in support
of her allegations. The relevant observations of the Frontier Complaints
Committee's Inquiry Report are reproduced below: -
"7) Finding of inquiring authority: - The inquiry committee assembled
at FTR HQRs Guwahati on 25.01.2012 to ascertain the fact of the
case. The committee has gone through the statements of complainant,
charged offi cer, and the statements of prosecution /defense witnesses
but the point raised in the complaint could not be fully established/
proved. The statement given by all the prosecution witnesses are not
enough to prove the complaint. She has lodged a complaint after a
gap of more than two years. The complainant failed to produce any
documentary evidence based on the allegations levelled against the
charged offi cer"
A.3 Central Complaints Committee's Inquiry Report
6. While the Frontier Complaints Committee's Report dated
17.01.2012 was pending for consideration, the Ministry of Home Aff airs /
Competent Authority, constituted another inquiry committee on 06.08.2012
being the Central Complaints Committee to conduct an appropriate inquiry
into the complainant's allegations of sexual harassment.
487
7. Prima facie, it appears from the materials on record that the Central
Complaints Committee had to be constituted, in view of Clause 9 of the
2006 Standing Order. Clause 9 of the 2006 Standing Order envisages two
levels of complaints committee; (i) a Frontier Complaints Committee for the
"combatised and in-fi eld offi cers" (ii) a Central Complaints Committee for
the "non-combatised offi cers". At the time of lodging of the complaint, the
respondent was serving as a non-combatised offi cer i.e., Area Organizer. For
such reason, the decision to constitute the Central Complaints Committee
had to be taken.
8. On 18.09.2012, the complainant through fax submitted a second
complaint containing additional allegations against the respondent
(hereinafter referred to as the "second complaint") along with few other
documents including the anonymous complaints made against the respondent
in October 2011.
9. Accordingly, the Central Complaints Committee undertook the
inquiry, and in the preliminary hearing held on 27.09.2012, it decided to
treat the complaint as the charge-sheet in view of the fact that no specifi c
charges were framed against the respondent. The respondent was provided
with all the relevant documents including the original copy of the fi rst
complaint dated 30.08.2011. After, confi rming with the respondent as regards
the receipt of all relevant documents, the Central Complaints Committee
inquired with the respondent whether he pleaded guilty to the charges or
not. The respondent pleaded not guilty and categorically denied the charges
levelled against him. The relevant portion of the Central Complaints
Committee's Report reads as under: -
"VI. CHARGES WHICH WERE ADMITTED/ DROPPED/ NOT
PRESSED:
Shri Dilip Paul, the charged offi cer did not plead guilty to any of the
allegations made by Smt. X, FA (Lady) vide complaint dated 30.08.2011
framed against him."
10. The Central Complaints Committee in the course of its inquiry
examined in all 20 witnesses produced by the complainant (incl. 5 witnesses
who were earlier examined by the Frontier Level Complaints Committee)
and 6 witnesses on behalf of the respondent (incl. 1 witness earlier examined
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
488
by the Frontier Level Complaints Committee). Later, the Central Complaints
Committee delineated the charges to be inquired by it into 10 distinct points.
The points of determination framed by the Committee reads thus: -
"VII. CHARGES ACTUALLY INQUIRED INTO AND POINTS
TO BE DETERMINED
The Complaints Committee is aware that aspects of this complaint are
implicated in the FIR that Shri Dilip Paul lodged on 26.08.2011 at P.S.
Rangia, on the matter of an allegedly threatening message sent to him
on his mobile phones by Smt. X's husband. In the counter-case fi led
by Smt. X's husband, similar allegations of sexual harassment have
been raised. The Committee has ascertained from the SP Kamrup that
both the cases are still pending investigation. Nevertheless, going by
what has been stated in the CCS, CCA Rules 14(3), which states that
action of prosecution in a court and departmental proceedings can
go on simultaneously. The CCS CCA Rules require the fact that the
approach and objective in the criminal and disciplinary proceedings
are altogether distinct and diff erent, be kept in view, as is laid down
by the various Supreme Court rulings to this eff ect. Accordingly, the
Committee decide to proceed with enquiry and submit its fi ndings.
Smt. X has alleged that a few months after she joined Area Offi ce,
Rangia in April 2009, Shri Dilip Paul, then A.O. Rangia, started
making unwelcome sexual advances to her, and that upon her refusal
to submit to his advances and his sexually determined misconduct, he
withdrew all work from her. She has cited the following incidents as
the substance of her complaint.
Point 1: That Shri Dilip Paul would use the pretext of summoning
into his room with work-related fi les in order to make comments of
a sexually loaded and personal nature, such as remarks about her
personal appearance and her looks, about how he wanted to marry a
Manipuri girl like her. He would also boast at times about his sexual
prowess and abilities in satisfying women who were unhappy with their
husbands. He would also make comments that had a double meaning
(of a sexual nature). On such occasions, he would detain her in his
offi ce for inordinately long periods. This charge, if substantiated, is
admissible under the Vishaka defi nition of sexual harassment as it
489
involves sexually coloured remarks and other unwelcome physical,
verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature. Furthermore, it may also
be shown to be discriminatory if it is substantiated that Smt. X believed
that her objection to Shri Dilip Paul's conduct would disadvantage
her in connection with her employment and her apprehension that it
would create a hostile work environment.
Point 2: That Shri Dilip Paul would stare at her in the workplace, such
as the repeated incidents in which he would come out from his offi ce
into the room that she was sitting, on the pretext of drinking water. This
charge, if substantiated, is admissible under the Vishaka defi nition of
sexual harassment as it involves sexually coloured remarks and other
unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.
Point 3: That Shri Dilip Paul would attempt to touch her in an
unwelcome sexually determined manner in the workplace, such as an
incident when, on the pretext of teaching her to operate a laptop, he
come close to her and touched her shoulder and body. This charge,
if substantiated, is admissible under the Vishaka defi nition of sexual
harassment as it involves physical contact and advances and other
unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.
Furthermore, it may also be shown to be discriminatory if it is
substantiated that Smt. X believed that her objection to Shri Dilip Paul's
conduct would disadvantage her in connection with her employment
and her apprehension that if would create a hostile work environment.
Point 4: That Shri Dilip Paul would often make her work much beyond
offi ce hours, often after 2000 hours. He would then off er to drop here
in his vehicle to her home. In general, Shri Dilip Paul would pressure
her to drive with him in his vehicle, either when she was returning
from work or in the town.
Point 5: That Shri Dilip Paul, on the occasion that Smt. X with other
offi ce colleagues had accompanied him to the railway station to book
train tickets for the study tour to South India in march 2010, made an
unwelcome sexual advance to her in full public view. While she was
standing in the queue at the ticket booking counter, Shri Dilip Paul
came to stand next to her and putt his arm around her shoulder and
tried to hug her close to his body. Shri Dilip Paul said to her that he
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
490
is sending her on the study tour to make her "mind fresh" so that she
may forget her previous life and when she returned, begin a new one
as Mrs. Paul.
Point 6: That Shri Dilip Paul subjected her to further unwelcome
sexually determined conduct by the statements that he made when he
came to the railway station to see off the group departing for the study
tour. After the luggage had been loaded onto the train, Shri Dilip Paul
came into the train compartment and said to Smt. X "tum jaa rahe ho to
mari jaan jaa rahi hai. Ham ka saath jaanaa hi acchaa hota. Koi baat
nahiin, tum study tour se waapas aa jaaoo, to tum Mrs Paul banogi."
Point 7: That Shri Dilip Paul made unwelcome sexual advances to
her outside the workplace as well, where on several occasions, he
propositioned her, asking her to leave her husband and marry him
on the assurance that he would adopt her children as his own. Since
July 2009, Shri Dilip Paul made it a habit to visit her uninvited and
she felt unable to refuse entry to her hierarchically superior offi cer,
fearing future discrimination. These visits took place even late at night.
Several incidents have been cited in the complaint in this connection.
a. That Shri Dilip Paul used to make unsolicited phone calls to
her, frequently at night and insisted on speaking to her for long
durations, sometime up to half and hour. The phone calls were
usually made between 19:00 and 20:00 hours, but occasionally, she
also received calls from Shri Dilip Paul as late as 4.30 a.m. The
substance of these calls mostly consisted of unwelcome comments
of sexual nature with the objective of making her submit to his
unwelcome sexual advances.
b. On one occasion, Shri Dilip Paul came to Smt. X's home at around
4.45 a.m. and insisted that she came out for a morning walk with
him. Fearful that if she refused, he would insist on coming into her
house at that hour, she accompanied him for a short distance.
c. That, on one uninvited visit to Smt. X's home, Shri Dilip Paul came
with a bottle of alcohol and sought to pressure her to join him in
drinking. When she tried to get away from him by going to the
kitchen, Shri D. Paul followed her and tried to force himself upon
491
her by embracing her. She somehow managed to extricate herself
and ran out the house, and remained there until Shri D. Paul left
the house.
d. That on his uninvited visits to Smt. X's home, Shri Dilip Paul showed
an unnatural and unhealthy interest in her daughter. He would call
the child and draw her to him, and would then attempt to hold her in
a very 'dirty' manner. On the occasion that this happened, he only
let go of the child when Smt. X called the child to her in Manipuri.
e. That when Shri Dilip Paul visited her house one evening in April
2010, shortly after her return from the Study Tour to South India,
he made unwelcome sexual advances to her by his statement that
they would become one in a few days time and that she should stop
resisting. He also tried to forcibly embrace her, but she extricated
herself and ran into the room that her children were sleeping in.
f. That Shri Dilip Paul, during an official trip to Nagrijuli in
connection with the Civic Action Programme, made her sit next to
him and tried to hold her hand and touch her, all of which behaviour
was sexually determined, unwelcome and insulting. Smt. X also
stated that there were no eyewitnesses to these acts, as only she
·and Shri Dilip Paul were seated in the middle seat of the car.
Point 8: That Shri Dilip Paul began victimising her for her refusal to
submit to his unwelcome sexual advances soon after he learnt that she
had made a complaint about his misconduct to Shri S.C. Katoch, who
happened to be DIG of another area. Smt. X had telephoned Shri S.C.
Katoch after the incident reported in point 10, and told him all that
had been taking place. She stated that Shri Katoch informed her in a
subsequent phone call that she made to him that he had issued a verbal
reprimand to Shri Dilip Paul. However, a few days after the incident,
Shri Dilip Paul called her into his offi ce and asked her whether she
had made a complaint against him to Shri Katoch. Smt. X confi rmed
to him that she had indeed done so, and to scare him, told him that
she had made a written complaint. From that day on, Shri Dilip Paul
withdrew all the work that was assigned to her and assigned it to
another employee. Thereafter, and for the next three months, Smt. X
was made to sit idle in the offi ce.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. DILIP PAUL
[J. B. PARDIWALA, J.]
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 13 S.C.R.
492
Point 9: In late August 2010, Smt. X approached IG S.K.