Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others

INTRODUCTION

Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others[1] is a significant legal case that unfolded before the Supreme Court of India, with the appeal filed by Aureliano Fernandes against the termination of his services by the Goa University. The case revolves around allegations of sexual harassment against Fernandes and the subsequent inquiry conducted by the university’s complaints committee. The appellant contended that the proceedings were hurried, and he was denied a fair opportunity to defend himself, leading to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated May 12, 2023, critically examined the procedural lapses during the inquiry, specifically focusing on the Committee’s haste in conducting consecutive hearings and inadequate consideration of the appellant’s health issues. The Court found that the proceedings deviated from the prescribed norms, violating the principles of natural justice “as far as practicable.” The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural fairness, particularly in sensitive cases involving allegations of sexual harassment. The Court set aside the termination decision and issued directives for a fair and thorough inquiry process to be conducted within a stipulated timeframe.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In 1996, the Appellant i.e., Aureliano Fernandes was appointed as a temporary employee in the Political Science department of respondent no. 2 – Goa University. Subsequently, in 2003, he became a permanent employee in the same department.
2. One day 9 complaints were filed to the university stating that the Appellant physically harassed them. An inquiry was initiated against him. During the hearings on 27^th  and 28^th of April, 2009 he claimed that the entire thing was a conspiracy against him by the faculty and the girls. He also requested to remove two people from the committee because they allegedly have a bias against him.
3. On the 30^th of April, the committee sent a notice for an additional complaint of sexual harassment. On 2^nd May, he asked for permission to appoint a lawyer on his behalf which was rejected later and preponed the proceedings from June 12, 2009 to May 12, 2009. The Appellant wrote a letter to the committee on May 13^th requesting some more time to appear before it because of some health issues he was facing but was rejected on the 14^th of May. The committee also directed him to appear before it on the 19^th of May.
4. The appellant failed to appear before the committee. So, it has provided him with one last opportunity to appear on the 23^rd of May. The Appellant has again written a letter to the committee seeking 3 to 4 weeks more time. But the committee rejected his request on the same day.
5. The appellant wrote to the committee after around ten days, in which he among other things said that he had somewhat recovered from his health problems. However, the committee had already acted against the appellant ex parte (if the defendant did not show up for the hearing) and had sent the registrar a copy of its report. stating that “The act amounted to grave misconduct and was in a grave violation of Rule 3(1)(III) of the CCS (central civil services) conduct rules” and it also recommended termination of the appellant.
6. The Goa University executive council (“EC”) following its acceptance of the report that placed the appellant under immediate suspension on June 13, 2009, the Goa University executive council (“EC”) opened an investigation under ‘Rule 14 of the CCS CCA Rules, 1965’. However, because of the Supreme Court’s judgement in Medha Kotwal Lele and others v Union of India and Others[2], which held that According to the CCS CCA Rules, the complaints committee’s report on preventing sexual harassment at work will be considered an “inquiry report,” and it will thereafter be sent to the disciplinary committee. The inquiry proceedings by the EC stood terminated. The EC determined that, given the seriousness of the charges brought against him, the appellant was not fit to be kept in his position.
7. The Appellate Authority – the Goa governor and the Goa University chancellor upheld the EC’s ruling in an order dated April 19, 2010. Later, a ruling dated May 10, 2010, terminated his service, and banned him from employment in the future under “Rule 11(IX) of the CCS CCA Rules.”
8. The Bombay High Court heard a challenge to the Disciplinary Committee’s orders. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant was given numerous amounts of opportunities to present himself before the complaints committee, so the ex parte order is justified. The high court also upheld the decision of the committee regarding discarding medical certificates and rejecting bias against him by the members of the committee. As a result, the High Court denied the writ petition, concluding that neither the Service Rules nor the natural justice principles had been broken.
9. Aureliano Fernandes has further appealed to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Bombay High Court.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the inquiry conducted by the complaints committee of Goa University is against ‘the principles of natural justice’ and other rules listed? 
2. Whether the committee is justified in proceeding with ex parte against the appellant?

CONTENTIONS OF Appellant

1. The counsel on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Bishwajeet Bhattacharya, contended that the entire proceedings for the case were done in a hurry. The entire proceedings were finished within 39 days. He argued that the committee had agreed to extend the time for proceedings till June 12^th but the committee abruptly reduced the time by almost a month to May 14^th, 2009 not giving any time for the appellant to represent him properly. Therefore, they argued that by denying him a fair hearing before issuing the termination order, the rules of natural justice had been deliberately breached.
2. He further cited a decision of “the Delhi High Court in Sandeep Khurana v. Delhi Transco Ltd. And Others[3] and of the Karnataka High Court in Professor Giridhar Madras v. Indian Institute of Science represented by Chairman and Others[4]” that the Report of the committee was not equated to the report of an inquiry officer which was also prescribed in the Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. This is also a grave violation of the principles of natural justice as the committee did not follow the prescribed procedure. He also cited Article 311(2) of the Constitution to justify this claim.
3. He further argued, “At no stage was he (the appellant) informed by the Committee that the proceeding being conducted by it were disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the report submitted by the said Committee could not have been treated by the respondents as an Inquiry Report under CCS (CCA) Rules.”

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

1. Ms. Ruchira Gupta, counsel for the respondents contended that “the appellant had failed to challenge the inquiry initiated by the university at the appropriate stage, so he cannot do the afterwards.” To support the submission, she cited the letter written by the appellant dated 18^th of April, 2009 where he voiced reservations about the members of the Committee, but he did not address the Committee’s authority or the protocol for conducting the investigation.
2. She further contended that although the Committee held eighteen hearings and offered the appellant at least three chances to provide a reply, he failed to attend numerous of the sessions. The Committee only moved ex parte against the appellant after he repeatedly requested adjournments, presented flimsy grounds of indisposition, and failed to appear.
3. She cited a decision of the Delhi High Court in “Avinash Mishra v. Union of India”[5]the expression “as far as practicable” to justify the committee having discretion not to follow the procedure strictly.
4. She also cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in “Hira Nath Mishra and Others v.
   Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi and Another”[6] and “P.D. Agrawal v.
   State Bank of India and Others”[7] to contend that “the principles of natural justice is not an inflexible doctrine and the facts and circumstances of each case have to be examined to see whether the requirements of natural justice stand satisfied. Considering the sensitivity of the present issue where 17 students of the university had filed complaints of sexual harassment against the appellant, the committee is justified to exercise its discretion to balance the principles of natural justice.”
5.  She contended that there was no prejudice to the appellant stating that the appellant was well aware of the complaints’ details from the beginning, with relevant depositions provided to him. The appellant also had ample opportunities to respond, cross-examine witnesses, and present a defence. The council refers to a court order in “Medha Kotwal’s case” (supra), stating that the Complaints Committee, as per guidelines in “Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others”[8], serves as the Inquiry Authority for CCS (CCA) Rules.

JUDGEMENT

In this case, the Committee that the Disciplinary Authority constituted did not adhere strictly to the CCS (CCA) Rules’ stipulated inquiry method. Despite this, the appellant received copies of complaints, complainants’ depositions, and relevant material. The appellant provided a detailed defence and a list of witnesses, indicating his awareness of the allegations. The non-framing of charges was deemed non-detrimental.

However, procedural defects and lapses occurred in May 2009 when the Committee rushed through 12 consecutive hearings, pressuring the appellant to respond to new depositions within a week. Despite the appellant’s medical concerns and the denial of legal representation, the Committee failed to allow sufficient preparation time, compromising the process’s fairness.

Due to these shortcomings, the appellant’s questioning of the process and outcome is justified. The sensitivity of the case, involving seventeen complaints of sexual harassment, does not excuse disregarding procedural fairness. The Committee’s anxiety to be fair to the victims resulted in greater harm by compromising the fairness of the inquiry.

The Court concludes that the proceedings from May 2009 did not adhere to the prescribed norm of “as far as practicable,” violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the upheld decision of EC to terminate the appellant’s services is quashed and set aside with a few directions such as allowing the appellant a sufficient chance to defend himself and finishing the proceedings within three months of the committee’s initial scheduled hearing. The court has also given certain directions to the central and state governments to effectively implement the PoSH Act.Top of Form

ANALYSIS

The court had a balanced view of the matter. The court thought that the disciplinary committee did not follow the procedure under rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. The court observed the shortcomings in the procedure when the committee rushed the proceedings and pressured the appellant to file a response. The committee didn’t even consider the health issues of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal didn’t have the adequate opportunity to represent himself before the court properly.

Due to the breach of principles of natural justice in the present case proceedings, the court had set aside the judgement of the High Court and squashed the report of the Executive Commission terminating the appellant from his job. The court has even passed a few directions to the committee to follow in order to Safeguard the rights under the principles of natural justice

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the judgment in “Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and Others” underscores the paramount importance of upholding principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court found that the inquiry conducted by the complaints committee of Goa University deviated from the prescribed procedural norms, particularly during the hasty proceedings in May 2009. The appellant, Aureliano Fernandes, was denied adequate time and opportunity to present a defence, and his health concerns were not duly considered.

As a result, the Court quashed the termination decision by the Executive Council and set aside the judgment of the High Court. In its place, the Court issued clear directives, emphasizing the need for a fair and comprehensive inquiry, ensuring that Fernandes is afforded ample opportunity to defend himself. The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that, even in sensitive cases involving serious allegations, procedural fairness must be meticulously maintained, and individuals facing disciplinary action deserve a fair and just process.

REFERENCES

1. Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa and others, Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014.
2. Indian kanoon – https://www.indiankanoon.org/89978449
3. Live law – https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-posh-act-protection-of-women-from-sexual-harassment-228601
4. Article on the case in mondaq.com – https://www.mondaq.com/india/discrimination-disability–sexual-harassment

This Article is written by Chinthaginjala Karthik student of Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University, Visakhapatnam (DSNLU); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

[1] CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014

[2] (2013) 1 SCC 297

[3] ILR 2006 (11) Del 1313

[4]
(2019) SCC Online Kar 3508

[5] 2014 SCC Online Del 1856

[6] (1973) 1 SCC 805

[7] (2006) 8 SCC 776

[8] (1997) 6 SCC 241

Admin