Bhuwan Chandra Pandey vs Union of India and others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/B) No.153 of 2013
Issues raised
Is the sole testimony, of the victim of sexual abuse, sufficient to hold the perpetrator guilty of misconduct in a departmental enquiry? Is the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed on the perpetrator as a consequence thereof, grossly disproportionate warranting interference by this Court in the exercise of its power of judicial review?
Facts of this case
For the paramedic course (the duration of which was for a period of three months), the petitioner was nominated, for the three day period 16.08.1998 to 18.08.1998, as a guest instructor for an outdoor exercise with trainees, for conducting a half day theory class, a half night march exercise at the S.S.B. Academy Gwaldum, and to impart them training on military topics such as night navigation and map reading.
On 18.08.1998 the trainees, including two lady members of the 94 medic course, were imparted training on theoretical subjects. The half-night training exercise included a night march.
However, because of heavy rains in that area, it was decided by the petitioner’s superior officers not to permit both the lady trainees to march in the wet and muddy hilly areas to prevent any casualty occurring thereby.
In the affidavit, filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner states that it was decided to give minimum or grace marks for the night march training to the two lady trainees as they did not participate in the night march.
After completion of the night training exercise, the petitioner, along with several other members including the two lady trainees, sat in the cabin of a truck which was coming back to Gwaldum station. It is in the cabin of the truck that the petitioner is said to have molested one of the lady trainees and to have sexually harassed her.
The victim trainee (hereinafter referred to as the “complainant”) lodged a complaint on 19.08.1998 to the DIG F.A Gwaldum alleging sexual harassment by the petitioner during the return journey on 18.08.1998.
Petitioner and his father, who was a DIG in the SSB, had pressured the complainant to withdraw the case.
After this internal committee found the petitioner guilty of sexual harassment in 2001, however, due to procedural discrepancies in the inquiry process took several turns like several litigation processes took place before a fresh inquiry committee was constituted for the third time in 2011.
The finding was upheld by UPSC, the disciplinary authority and by Ministry of Home Affairs.
Although the Complainant's version was corroborated by another women trainee who was present at the time of this unfortunate event and also corroborated by superior officers.
The petitioner argued that solely her uncorroborated "self-serving testimony" could form the basis for holding him guilty in the aforesaid charges.
Observations of the court
High Court opined that the sole testimony of the complainant would suffice in an internal or departmental enquiry into cases of sexual harassment and molestation also.
The Learned court also noted that a departmental enquiry or disciplinary proceeding is not governed by the strict interpretation of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as in a criminal trial. Even circumstantial evidence or hearsay could be admitted provided it should be credible and has reason to belive.
Comments