Union of India and Others vs Dilip Paul
Background
The respondent, an Area Organizer (later DIG) of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), was accused by a woman subordinate employee of sustained sexual harassment (including inappropriate phone calls, forced isolation at work, unwelcome visits to her residence, physical contact, and marriage proposals) over more than two years. After an on-spot inquiry and a Frontier Complaints Committee inquiry (later cancelled for being improperly constituted), a Central Complaints Committee (CCC) examined the allegations across two complaints and around 20 witnesses, and the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of permanently withholding 50% of the respondent's pension. The Gauhati High Court set aside this penalty on three grounds: that the CCC had wrongly gone beyond the first complaint it was mandated to examine, that it improperly acted as prosecutor by questioning witnesses, and that its findings on one specific allegation were based on conjecture rather than evidence.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court on all three grounds. First, applying the "test of prejudice" doctrine, it held that even if the respondent was not formally asked to plead guilty to the second complaint, no real prejudice resulted since he had already filed a full written defence denying all charges and cross-examined every witness on every point. Second, relying on its own precedent (Pravin Kumar v. Union of India) and Section 165 of the Evidence Act, the Court held that an inquiry committee, like a judge, is entitled to put clarifying questions to witnesses to get at the truth, and doing so does not turn it into a "prosecutor." Third, on the "no evidence" argument, the Court reviewed the extensive witness testimony (multiple coworkers corroborating patterns of harassment, favoritism, and inappropriate conduct) and held this was not a "no evidence" case. Courts reviewing disciplinary findings must not re-weigh sufficiency of evidence, only check whether some evidence exists and whether the finding is not perverse. The Court also emphasized that while false sexual harassment allegations must be carefully guarded against, genuine allegations must be treated with the seriousness they deserve. It restored the disciplinary authority's penalty (though directed no recovery of pension amounts already paid in the interim) and allowed the Union of India's appeal.
Lesson Learnt
Courts reviewing workplace sexual harassment inquiries will not second-guess the internal committee's factual findings or minor procedural lapses unless genuine prejudice or a complete absence of evidence is shown; an inquiry committee is permitted to actively question witnesses to uncover the truth, and technical defects in procedure do not automatically invalidate a disciplinary finding if the accused had a fair opportunity to defend himself.