/2023 INSC 0429/ Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 AURELIANO FERNANDES .… APPELLANT Versus STATE OF GOA AND OTHERS … . RESPONDENTS I N D E X A. Scope of the Appeal 1 B. Seque nce of Events 1-8 (a) Proceedings before the First Committee 1-6 (b) Proceedings before the Executive Council 6-8 C. Decision of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority 8-9 D. Deci sion of the High Court 9-10 E. Arguments advanced by counsel for the parties 10-16 (a) Counsel for the appellant 10-12 (b) Counsel for the respondent s No. 2 & 3 12-16 F. The TRIAD: Articles 309, 310 and 311 of the Constituti on of India 16-19 (a) Article 309: Conditions of Service 17 (b) Article 310 : Doctrine of Pleasure 18 (c) Article 311 : A Manifestation of the Principles of Natural Justice 19 REPORTABLE Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014 G. Article 14 : Bedrock of the Principles of Na tural Justice 20-21 H. The Twin Anchors : Nemo Judex In Cause Sua and Audi Alterem Partem 21-26 I. Fair Action and Impartiality in Service Jurisprudence 26-29 J. The Statutory Regime 29 -31 (a) Goa Uni versity Statute 29 (b) CCS (CCA) Rules 29 -30 (c) Pragmatic Application of the “As far as is practicable” Rule 30-31 K. Journey from “Vishaka” Case to the Posh Act 31-38 (a) Vishaka Guidelines: Filling in the vacuum 31-33 (b) Medha Kotwal Lele’s case : Follow up through continuing mandamus 33-36 (c) Enactment of the Posh Act and Rules 36 -37 (d) Breathing Reasonableness into the Procedural Regime 37 -38 L. Analysis and Discussion 38-49 (a) Scope of interference by the High Court in Judicial Review 39-40 (b) Extent of Adherence to the “as far as practicable” norm 40-42 (c) The Committee’s Understanding of its mandate 42-44 (d) Whir lwind Proceedings 44-47 (e) How did the Executive C ouncil Falter? 47 -49 M. Conclusion 49 -52 N. Epilogue 53-55 O. Directions 55-59 **** CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 1 of 59 J U D G E M E N T HIMA KO HLI, J. A. SCOPE OF THE APP EAL 1. A challenge has bee n laid by the appe llant to the judgment dated 15 th March, 2012 , passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench, at Goa , dismissing a writ petition 1 preferred by him aga inst an order 2 passed by the Executive Council 3 of Goa University (Disciplina ry Authority) acce ptin g the Report 4 of the Standi ng Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Work Place 5 and imposing upon him , a ma jor pe nalty of dismissal from services and disqualification from the future employment under Ru le 11(IX) of the Cent ral Civil Services (Cl as sification , Control and A ppeal) Rul es, 1965 6 which was duly upheld by the Governor and the Chancellor of Goa University , being the Appellate Authority 7. B. SEQUENCE OF E VENTS (a) PR OCE EDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST COM MI TTEE : 2. The factual matrix of the case needs to be placed in a chro nological seq uence . Th e appellant commen ced his career in the respondent no. 2 – Goa University as a Temporary Lecturer in the Department of Political Science , in the year 1996 . He was 1 W.P. No. 602 of 2011 2 Da ted 10th May , 2010 3 For short ‘EC ’ 4 Dated 05 th June , 2009 5 For short ‘ The Commit tee ’ 6 For short the CCS (CCA ) Rule s 7 Vide Order dated 19 th Apr il, 201 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 2 of 59 app oint ed as the Head of the said Department , in the year 2003. It is t he appellant ’s versi on, wh ich is strongly ref uted by the other s ide, that aggrieved by the passing o f a resolution b y the Departmental Council of the Department of Political Science agains t them, two girl student s along with their friends submitted a compl aint to the respo nden t no.2 – University , alleging physical h arassment at his hands . The said complaints 8 were the starting point of an inquiry initiated by the Committee on receiving comp lain ts by the Registrar of the respondent no. 2 – University 9. The C ommittee serv ed a n otice 10 on the appellant calling upon him to explain the charge s levelled against him in nine complaints and to appear before it for a personal hearing on 24 th April , 200 9, a date that was subs eq uently changed to 2 7nd April, 2009 . Contemp oraneously , the Reg istrar of the respondent no. 2 – University directed the appellant to hand over charge and proceed on leave till the conclusion o f the inquiry. 3. The appellant furnish ed a detailed reply to the Committee , running into fifty -three pages wh erein he rais ed some prelim inary objection s to the inquiry being conducted by the Committee, alleged a well -organized conspiracy against him by some wayward students in connivance wit h the mem bers of t he fac ulty and refuted the content s of fourteen deposit ions of girl students forwarde d t o him by the Committee . He concluded by stating that the charges of sexual harassment levelled against him were completely false and base les s. The appe llan t also address ed a letter to the Registrar seeking 8 Complain t d ated 11.03 .2009 & 17.03.2009 9 Under cove r of letter dated 08.04.2009 10 Dated 17 th Apr il, 20 09 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 3 of 59 removal of two Me mbers of the Committee o n the gro und of bias and on a plea that being his subordinates , they were prone to bias. 4. The Committee called the appellant for a hearing on 27 th Ap ril, 2009. It w as alleged by the appellant that the deposition of all the complaina nts including the witnes s name d b y him were recorded while he was made to wait outside the Committee room. He was called later on and the Committee recorded his statement. Even o n the nex t hea ring , on 28 th April, 2009 , a similar procedure was adopted by th e Committee . On 30 th Apr il, 20 09, the appellant received a notice from the Committee enclosing therewith another complaint of sexual harassment received against him to which he was directe d to respond and pres ent himself on 6 th May, 2009. Vide letter 2 nd May 2009, the appellant sought mor e time to submit a reply to the additional complaint and permission to engage an Advocate to appear for him before the Committee. 5. The appellant submitted his rep ly to t he noti ce on 8 th May, 2009 . O n 6 th May, 2009 , the requ est of the ap pellant to engage a lawyer was declined by the Committee. On the same day , a corrigendum was issued by the Committee to the earlier letter 11 informing him that the ne xt date fixed for filing his rep ly should be read as “12 th May, 2009” instead of “12 th June , 2009 ” and the d ate for further deposition should be read as “14 th May, 2009” instead of “12 th June, 2009”. 11 Date d 5th Ma y, 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 4 of 59 6. Vide letter dated 8 th May, 2009 , the appellant objected to the inquir y b eing conducted by the Committee on a compla int 12 received from an ex -studen t of the responde nt no. 2 – University on the ground that she was neither a student nor an employee of the University . A dditionally , he asked for a copy of the said co mplaint , bes ides the statement of deposition that had alread y been furnished to him. 7. On 12th May, 200 9, the appellant forwarded an affidavit of a witness to refute some of the allegation s levelled against him by the complainant s. Vide letter of even date, the C om mittee forwar ded an additi onal deposition of a membe r of the Faculty , Dr. Rahul T ripathi , who had st epped down from the Committee constituted to look into the complaints against the appellant and deposed as a witn ess. 8. The appellant wrote a letter dated 1 3th Ma y, 2009 to the Commit tee seeking some time to a ppear before it on a plea that he was admitted in the hospital with a seve re back - ac he. Vide notice dated 14 th May, 2009 , the Committee directed the appellant to appear before it on 19 th May, 2009 for reco rding his deposition and for submitt ing his writ ten reply to the fre sh deposi tion of the other compla inant . Further ext ension of time , as requested , was however declined by the Committee. 9. In the meantime, vide letter dated 13 th May, 2009 , the appellant app lied to t he respondent no.2 – University seeking voluntary retiremen t on health grounds. However, the said application was with drawn by him on 18 th May, 2009 . On the same date , an advocate engaged by the appellant’s b rother issued a notice to the responden ts no.2 and 12 Signed on 27 th April , 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 5 of 59 3 se eking exten sion of time by one month for the appella nt to appea r before the Committee . 10. In its l etter dat ed 20 th May, 2009 , the Committee noted that though the appellant had failed to appear before it on 19 th May, 2009 for recording his fur ther deposit ion , he was be ing granted one last opportunity to presen t himself o n 23rd May, 2009 , for completing his depos ition and for cross -examining the witness including the complainants. Alongside, six more deposition s were forwarded to the appellant , seek ing his reply by 22 nd May, 2009. 11. The appellant addressed yet an other lette r13 to the Committee ex pressing his inabili ty to attend the proceedings on 23 rd May, 2009 , on health ground s and request ed for postponement of the proceedi ng by 3-4 weeks . Howe ve r, h is request was turned down by the Committee on the very same d ay and the ap pe llant was directed t o remain present on 23 rd May, 2009 , failing which , he was informed that the Committee would proceed further with the inquiry. A second request 14 made by th e ap pellant for see king pos tponemen t of t he proceeding s of the Commi ttee , met t he same fate . 12. After a bout ten days , the a ppella nt sent a letter 15 to the Chairperson of the Committee stating inter alia that he had partially recovered from h is ailment and was in a position to depose . He sought fresh dates to enable him to fur nish a repl y to the additional de position s received b y him. However, by the n the Committee had procee ded 13 Dated 22 nd May, 2009 14 Da ted 23 rd May, 2009 15 Dated 4 th June, 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 6 of 59 ex -parte against the appellant and submitted its Report 16 to the Regi strar of the respon dent no. 2 – University stating that 18 mee tings had taken place in connectio n with the inquiry tha t had established se xual h arassment of the complain ts by the appellant which act amounted to a grave misco nduct and was in gross violation of Rule 3(1)(I II) of the CCS Conduct Rules and conseque ntly , recommend ed termi nati on of his s er vices. (b) PR OCE EDINGS BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 13. Th e E C held a meeting on 13 th Ju ne, 20 09 wherein the Report submitted by the Committee was accepted and the appellant w as pla ced under suspension with immediate effect. Vide Memorandum dated 8 th Septem ber, 2009, the Chai rman of the EC informed the appellant that the EC propose d to conduc t an inquiry against him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA ) Rules. Enclosed with the said M emoran dum , was the statement of the Article s of Cha rge, statement of the imputatio n of the misconduct in support of each Articl e of Charge, list of documents and a list of wit nesses for sustaining the said charges . The appellant was given ten days’ time to submi t a written statement of his defence and s tate w hether he desired to be hear d in person. 14. The a ppellant submit ted a detai led reply to the aforesaid Memorandum , run ning into twenty pages and also demand ed several documents and information rela ting t o the co mplaint s of sexual harassment made against him , on the plea that they were r elevant 16 Dated 5 th June, 2 009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 7 of 59 for submitt ing his written statement which was turned down by the Vice Chancell or of the respondent no. 2 – University 17 and he was granted twenty days to res pond . 15. On 15 th October, 2009 th e EC appointed a former Judge of the Bombay High Court to co nduc t an inquiry in to the charges fra med ag ains t the appe llant and he was informed that t he Inq uiry Officer will hold a preliminary inquiry into the charges framed against hi m on 9th No vember, 2009 . The first s itting of the Inquiry Committee conducted on 9 th November, 2009 , was duly attend ed by the app ellant and his Advocate. The second meeti ng was scheduled on 7 th December, 200 9 on which date when the Presenting Officer appea ring on be half of the respondent no. 2 – University referred to the judgment dated 26 th March, 2004 , passed by this Court i n the ca se of Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v . Unio n of I ndia and Others 18 and the am endment 19 to the provis o to Rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA ) Rules that provides that where ther e is a complaint of sexual harassment wit hin the meaning of Rule 3C of the Central Civil Services ( Cond uct) Rules, 1964 20, the Compla ints Committee shall be deemed to be the inquiring authority for the pur pose of imp osing major penalties , the Inquiry Officer decided to keep the inquiry in abeyance , so as to ascertai n as to whether any further directions ha d been issued by the Supreme Co urt in Med ha Kot wal ’s case (supra) . 16. On 15 th December, 2009 , the Registrar of the responde nt no. 2 - University informed the appellant that the disciplinary proceedin gs initiated agains t him on the 17 vid e letter 1 7th September, 2009 18 (2013) 1 SC C 297 19 Dat ed 1st July, 2 00 4 20 CCS (Conduct) Rules CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 8 of 59 re commendati ons made by the EC in its meeting held on 12 th Decembe r, 200 9, stood terminated and the order appointing th e Inquiry Officer had also be en withdrawn in the light of the order dated 26 th April, 2004 , passed by the this Court in Medh a Kotwal’s case holdin g that the report of the Complaints Committe e for Prev ention of Sexual Harassment of Women at W orkplace shall be deemed t o be an Inqu iry Report under the CCS (CCA ) Rules which shall be binding on the disciplinary au thority f or initiat ing disciplinar y action against the government servant . Describing the decis ion taken by th e EC on 14 th June, 2009 of appointing an Inquiry Officer to inqu ire into the c harges framed against the appellant as inadvertent, the Reg istrar in formed the appellan t that the disc iplinary authori ty will decide the further course of action against hi m und er the ext ant rules. C. DECISION OF TH E DISCIPLINARY AUTHO RITY A ND THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY 17. This was followed by issuance of a Memorandum 21 by th e Vice -Chancellor of the respondent no. 2 – University on behalf of the EC informing the appellant that in its mee ting c ondu cted on 28 th January, 2010 , the EC had accepted the report of the Committee and decided that he was unfit to be retained in service in view of the grav ity of the charges levelled against him . Proposin g to impose a major penalty of dis miss al 21 Dat ed 17 th Febr uar y, 20 10 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 9 of 59 thereby disqualifyin g him from future empl oyment as contemplated under t he Rules 22, the appellant was grant ed two weeks to submit his representatio n. 18. The appellant su bmitted his reply on 13 th March, 2010. After examining his reply, the disciplinary auth ority dismissed the appellant from service vide ord er dated 10 th May , 2010 . The appeal 23 preferred by the appellant against the said dismis sal order w as rejected by the order 24 of the Appellate Authority 25. D. DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT 19. The said orders were challen ged before the Bombay Hi gh Court . The High Court observed t hat t he Committee had granted ample opport unit ies to the appellant to cross -examine the complainants and the witnesses , but he had deliberately elected not to appear before it. I n such circumstances , the Committee could not be blam ed for proceed ing ex -part e against him and submitting its Report . It was also held th at the Committee w as j ustified in discar ding the medical certificat es submi tted by the appellant as he kept on making flimsy excuses to stay away from the enquiry pro ceedings . The plea of the ap pel lant that th e Committee was improperly constituted or its compo sition was questi onable as it compr ised of persons who were junior to him in the Depar tment , was rejected as meritless . Further , the contention that the enquiry had been conducted with undu e h as te , without giving a 22 Rule 11 ( IX) CCS CCA, 1965 23 Ap peal dated 2 5th June, 2010 24 Dated 19 th April, 2010 25 Governor of Goa a nd Chan cellor of Goa Univ ersity CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 10 of 59 fair and reasonable opportunity to the ap pellant to defen d himself , was als o turned down. As a result , t he High Court did no t see any mer its in the said writ petition wh ich was dismissed holding that there was no breach of the p rinci ples of natural justice and the Service Rules in the case . E. ARGUMEN TS ADVANCED BY COUNSE L FO R THE PARTIES : (a) COUNS EL FOR T HE APPEL LANT 20. Arguing on behalf o f the appellant , Mr. Bishwajeet Bhattacharya, learned Senior counsel has assailed the impug ned judgme nt on several counts . The main thru st of his argument s is that the dismissa l order 26 passed by the Disciplinary Authorit y a nd upheld by the Appellate Authority is based solely on the Report submitted by the Committee which was nothing more than a fact -finding proceeding that had commenced on 17 th March, 2009 and con cluded on 5 th June, 2009 ; that thou gh the inqui ry had purp orte dly comme nced on 17 th March, 2009, the first hearing had act ually taken place only on 27 th April, 2009 and the entire proce edin gs were hurriedly closed within a span of thirty -nine days , by re lying on forty -eight d ocuments a nd f orty -three depositions in t he cou rse of eighteen meetings without affording the appellant adequate opportunity to defend himself and present his ca se . It w as argued that though the Committee had acce ded to the request of the appellant f or extension of time 27 and had granted him time till 1 2th June, 2009 , th e period was abruptly curtailed by almost one month and the date was advanced to 14 th May, 2009 , wit hout any justification and unmindful of the appellant ’s indisposition , 26 Order dat ed 10 th Ma y, 2 010 27 Vide Lett er dated 5 th May, 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 11 of 59 as was conveye d. Only whe n th e ap pellant wrote to the Com mit tee seeki ng a new date for hi s further deposition and for conducting furth er proceeding s, did he c ome to know that the Commi ttee had concluded its proceeding and s ubmitted its Rep ort on 5th June, 2009 itself . It is thus conte nded that the principles of nat ural just ice have been grossly violated by the respondents and the appellant has been deprived of a reasonable opportunity o f a fair trial , before passing the order of dismissal from service thereby causing him serious prejudice. 21. Citing the decisio n of thi s Court i n Union of India and Anothe r v. Tulsi ram Patel 28, learn ed Senior counsel argued that none of the three clauses to th e se cond proviso to Article 311( 2) of the Constitut ion of India that mandates that no person employed by the Union or the Sta te shal l be d ism issed or removed fr om the service except after a n inquiry , co uld have been resorted to by the respondents for havin g elected not to conduct a proper inquiry before proceeding to dismiss the appellant. It was vehement ly contended that contrary to t he pro ced ure prescrib ed under the CCS (CCA ) Ru les, no proper inquiry was conducted by the respondents and no charges were fr amed by the first Committee till the date it had submitted its Report 29 and that the Article s of Charg e that were framed by th e respo nd ents vide Mem orandum date d 8 th Septembe r, 2009 , were subsequently drop ped and the inquiry ordered was abandoned in favour of the Report submitted by the first Committee which was only a fact fi nding report that could not h ave been relied on as a final inquiry , parti cular ly when it entailed serious 28 (1985) 3 SCC 398 29 Vide lette r d ated 5th Jun e, 2009 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 12 of 59 con se quen ces . Learned Senior counsel cited a decision o f a learned Single Judg e of the Delhi High Court in San deep K hurana v . D elhi Transco Ltd. And Others 30 and of a Singl e Judge of t he Karna taka High Court in Prof essor Gir idhar Madras v. I ndian Institute of Science represented by Chairman and Others 31 to urge t hat the Report of the Com mittee could not be equated with the report of an Inquiry officer, as contemplate d in the procedu re p rescribed in Rule 14 of the CC S (CC A) Ru les . This non -adh erence to the procedure prescribed has caused grave injustice to the appellant , it being a ser ious infraction of the pr inciples of natu ral justice. Allegations of bi as were also levelled by the appe llant against some mem bers of the first Committee. 22. Learne d counsel further argue d that none of the three clauses appended to the second provis o of Arti cle 311(2) of the Const itution of India have been pressed a ga inst the appell ant to ju stify the imprac tica bility of holding a proper inquiry and that failur e on the part of the Committee to follow the procedure as prescribe d in the CCS (CCA ) Rules itself vitiat es the entire proceedings . In fact , it is the c ase of the appellant that a t no s tage was he info rmed by the Co mmittee that the proceedin g being conducted by it were disciplinary proceeding s and ther efore , the report submitted by the sa id Committee c ou ld not have been treated by the respondents as a n Inquiry Report unde r CCS (CCA ) Rule s. (b) COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS NO. 2 AND 3 23. On the ot her hand, Ms. Ruchi ra Gu pta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent s no.2 and 3 stro ngly refuted the argumen ts advanced on b ehalf o f the 30 ILR 2006 ( 11 ) Del 13 13 31 (2019) SCC Onlin e Kar 3508 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 13 of 59 appellant . She submitted that the appellant ha ving fa iled to challeng e the decis ion taken by the resp ond ent no.2 – Universi ty of dispensi ng with the inquiry contemplated in the Memoran dum da ted 8 th September, 2009 at the appr opr iate sta ge , he is p rec luded from doing so belatedl y. To substantiate this s ubmis sion, she referre d to the preli minary objec tions taken by the appellan t in his lette r dated 18 th April, 2009 where he ha d raised five preliminary obj ections relating to the re con stitution of the Co mmittee and its composition , the prejudice allegedly h arbou red against him by two memb ers of the Commi ttee and the fa ct th at he w as denied acce ss to t he records sought by him . B ut the grievance subsequentl y sou ght to be raised abo ut the competence or juri sdiction of the Committee to conduct the inquiry and the pr ocedure adopted by it , was neve r questioned by t he appella nt. 24. Referrin g to the corre spond en ce exchanged between the Committee and the appellant, learned counsel submi tte d t hat the appellant was granted at least three opportunities to subm it his reply and eighteen he aring s were condu cted by the Committee but he di d not partic ipate in th e p roceedi ngs on several dates . O nly afte r the appel lant failed to turn up and made flimsy exc uses of ind isposition and repeated ly sought adjournments , did the Co mmittee proce ed ex par te again st him and submitted its Report to the Re gistrar on 5 th June, 2009. It was thus sought to be argued that the situation would not have changed in any mann er had another opportunity been affor ded to the appellant , as requ ested by him vide letter dated 4 th June , 2009 . In this context, the attent ion of the Court was drawn to the proviso to Rule 14 (2) of the CCS (CCA ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 14 of 59 Rules , which enjoins the Co mplaints Commi tte e to hold an i nquiry into the complaint of sexual harassment , “as far as pra ctica ble”, in accordan ce with the procedure laid do wn in the Rules. The d ecision of the Divisi on Bench of the Delhi High Court in Avin ash Mis hra v. Union of India 32 has been ci ted to justif y the stand of the respondent s that the expression “as far as pra cticab le” itself indic ates that t he Committee is veste d with the discre tion not to stri ctly follow the entire procedur e as long as the officer charge d has been affor ded adequate opp ort unit y to e xplain his stand in respect of the complaint and the relev an t materi al has be en discl osed to him. 25. Learned counsel for responde nts no. 2 and 3 we nt on to state tha t the Committee had afforded adequate opportuni ties to the appellant to cross -exa mine the witnesses , produce his witness es and complete his own deposition b ut he kept on del aying the procee dings unde r one prete xt or the other. Re ferring to t he Re po rt, she s tated that it shows that the Committee had taken note of the d etai led reply s ubm itted by the ap pellant on 25 th Apri l, 2009 and ha d dealt with the same at conside rable length . Re liance has also been placed on the decisi on s of thi s Court i n Hira Nath Mishra and Others v. Princip al, Rajend ra Medical Colleg e, Ranch i and Another 33 and P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Oth ers 34 to argue that pri nciple s of natural j ustice is not an inflexible doctrine and the fac ts and cir cumstance s of each case ha ve to be ex amined to se e whether the requirement s of natural jus tice s tand satisfied. In the present case, 32 2014 SCC Online D el 185 6 33 (1973) 1 S CC 805 34 (2006) 8 SCC 776 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 15 of 59 having regard t o the sensi tivity of the matter where no less than seventeen studen ts of the respondent no. 2 – University had submitted com plain ts of s exual harassment agains t the appellant, the Comm ittee exerci sed its discretio n by keep ing a balance and conduct ed the proceedings without v iolating the principles of natu ral justice , whic h is amply borne out from a per usal of the Report itself . 26. Learned c ounsel also re fut ed the submis sio n mad e by t he other side that failure on the part of the Committee to fra me Article s of Cha rge before conducting the inquiry ha d caused serious prejudic e to the app ellant . She submitte d that the sum and substance of the co mplain ts were well known t o the appellant from the very beginning and all the relevant de posit ion s of the complainan ts and o ther witnesses were duly furnished to him. He was affor ded a mple opportu nity to respond to the said com plaint s, cross -examin e the w itness es and pro duce his own witn esses in defence . Explaining the deci sion o f the res pon dent no.2 – Un iversit y to terminate the sub sequent ly constituted inquiry proceedi ngs against the appellant by virtue of the Memor andum date d 8th September, 2009 , learned couns el allu ded to the ord er dated 26 th April, 2004 , passed by this Court in Med ha Kot wal ’s case (supra), which had clari fie d that the Co mplaints Committee as contempl ated in Vi sha ka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Other s35, will be the Inquir y Author ity for the purpo ses of the CC S (CCA ) Rules and the report of t he s aid Committe e wil l b e deemed to be an Inquiry Report on which the Disciplinary Authority shall act in accordance with the Rules . It was submitted tha t the E C 35 (199 7) 6 SCC 241 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 16 of 59 had made a bona fide er ror by appoint ing an Inquiry Authority to inquire int o the charges framed aga inst the appell ant and the sai d decision to recall the order dated 15 th October, 2009 was du ly comm unica ted to the appellant on 15 th December, 2009 . O nly the reaf ter , did the EC issue a fr esh Memor andum 36 to the appella nt calling upon him to submit his representation on t he d ecision to acce pt the Repo rt submitted by the Committee and impose on him , a majo r pen alty of dis missal from service . 27. It was t hus submit ted that no prejudice was caus ed to th e appell ant and the Committee had observed the principles of natural justic e “as far as was practical ”, in the giv en facts and circumstanc es of the case . Adequ ate opportunity was afforde d to the appellant no t just by the Committee, but als o by the Discipl inary Authority and the Appella te Authority before taking any action against him. Therefo re , this was not a case of “no opport unity ” or “no hearing ” but a ca se of “adequate opp ort unity ” and “fair hearing ” afforded to the appellant before imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service on him, as specified in Section 11 (9) of the CCS (CCA ) Rul es. F. THE TRIAD : ARTICLES 309, 310 AND 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 28. Serv ice s unde r the Union and the Stat es are govern ed under P art XIV of the Constitu tion . Article 309 of the Constitution that provide s for recruit ment and condit ion s of service of persons serving the Un ion or a State , Article 310 that re fers to the tenure of off ice of persons serving the Uni on or a State and Article 311 that deals with dismissal, 36 dated 17th Febru ary, 2010 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 17 of 59 removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil ca paci ties und er the Union or a State are inter -linked and “form an integrated whole , there be ing an organi c an d them atic unity running throug h them ”37. (a) ARTI CLE 309 : CONDITIONS OF SERVICE 29. Article 309 doe s not by itself provide for recruitment or conditions of ser vice of Government se rvants, b ut conf ers this power on the appropriate legislatu re to make the laws and on the P resident and the Gover nment o f a State to make rules relating to these matters . The expre ssion “cond itions of service ” in Ar ticle 309 t akes in its swee p all tho se co nditions that regulate holding of a post by a person which begins from the time he ente rs the ser vice till his r etireme nt and even pos t-retir ement , in relation to matters l ike pens ion , pending disciplinary proceedings , etc . This expr ession also includes the right to dismi ss such a pe rson from service 38. A Statut e can be enacted by the appropriate Legislature o r Rule s can be made by the appropriate Executive under Article 309 for pr escribing the procedure and the authority who can init iate disciplinary action against a Gove rnment serv ant39. It has further been he ld that any Act or Rule that violate s the rights guaranteed t o a government s erv ant unde r Article 311 , would be void 40. Si milarl y, such an Act or Rule would be treated as void if it violates any of the fundamental righ ts guara nteed un der P art III of the Co nstitution. 37 Union of India and Anot he r v. Tulsi Ram Patel , (1985) 3 SCC 398 38 State of Madhy a Prades h and O the rs v. Shardul Singh, (197 0) 1 SCC 108 39 Bk. Sard ari Lal v . Union of India and Others, (197 1) 1 SCC 411 40 Moti Ram Dek a v . The General Ma nag er, North East Frontier Railway, (1964) 5 SCR 683 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 18 of 59 (b) ARTI CLE 3 10 : DOCTRINE OF PLEA SURE 30. Article 310 embodies the “Doctrine of Pleasure ” an d in th e co ntext of Governmen t servants , relates to thei r ten ure of serv ice . Article 310 (1) makes the tenure of Governm ent serv ants subject to the plea sure of the Presi dent or the Gov ernor of a State except as expr essly provided for by the Constit ution . This Article is ana log ous to the rights o f the Crown in E nglan d wher e all public officers and servants of the Crown are appointed at the pleasure of the Crown and their services can be terminated at wi ll, wi thout a ssigning any cause 41. That is the reason why the tenure of the Gov ernment servant is subject to the pleas ure of the President or the Govern or of a State, ex cept as expressly pro vided for under th e Constitution. All members of such s ervice s who re ceive their stipend from the public exchequer , whethe r at the to p of the hier archy or at the very bottom , are fina lly an swera ble t o the public and expected to discharge the ir duties responsibly , efficient ly, effectively and above all, for the higher goo d o f the pu bli c. It can, therefore, be seen that though the origin of Government serva nts may be contra ctual, once a ppoint ed to the post or office , the y acquire a status and their right s and obli gations are no longer de term ined by the consent of both the par ties, but are govern ed by the Statut e or Statu tory Rules 42. 41 Union of India and Anothe r v. Tuls i Ram Patel , (1985) 3 SCC 398 42 Ro shan Lal Tandon v . Uni on of India , (1968 ) 1 SCR 18 5 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 19 of 59 (c) ARTI CLE 3 11 : A MANIFESTATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATU RAL JU STICE 31. This Court has h eld that in matt ers of dism issal, remo val or reduc tio n in rank of publi c servants , Article 311 of the Constitution is a man ifestation of the essential principles of natural justice . It imposes a duty on the Governmen t to ensu re tha t any such decision against the public serv ant is precede d by an inquiry that contemplates an opportunity of hearing to be gran ted to the p ubli c s ervant, who is also entitled to make a representation again st such a decision 43. Article 311 r eads as u nder : “311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons empl oyed in civi l capacities under th e Union or a State .—(1) No perso n who is a m embe r of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil servi ce of a State or holds a civil po st und er the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an au thority subo rdinate to that by wh ich he was appointed. (2) No such person as afores aid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inq uiry in which he has be en info rme d o f the charges against him and given a reasonable opportun ity o f being heard in respect of those charges: Provided that where i t is proposed after s uch inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such pena lty may be imp osed on the basis of t he evid enc e a dduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to gi ve such person any opportunity of ma king representation on the pe nalty proposed : Provi ded further that this clause shall not apply — (a) where a p erson is dismi ssed or removed or red uced in ra nk on the ground of conduct which has led to his convicti on on a criminal cha rge; or (b) whe re the au thority empowered to di smiss or remove a pe rson or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, t o be recorded by that authority in w riting, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; o r (c) where the P resident or the Go vernor, as t he case may be, is satisfied that in the in terest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold su ch inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any s uch per son as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is r easo nab ly practicab le to hol d such in quiry as is r eferred to in claus e (2), the decis ion ther eon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be fina l.” 43 Nisha Priya Bhatia v . Union of In dia and Anoth er, (2020 ) 13 SCC 56 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 20 of 59 32. To provide a sense of securit y of tenure to Government serva nts, the F rame rs of the Constitut ion have incorporated safe guard s in respect of t he punishment or dismissal or removal or reduction in thei r rank as pro vided for in Cla uses (1) and (2) of Articl e 311 . At the same time, b eing mindful of th e very same p ublic interest and public good which does not permit that Governmen t servants found to be corrup t, dishonest or inefficient be continue d in ser vice , a r emedy is provided under the second prov iso to Clause (2) of Art icle 311 where under their ser vices can be dispensed with , without conducting a disc iplinary inquiry . 33. Thus , the golden threa d that weaves through Articles 309, 3 10 and 3 11 is public interest , directed towards lar ge r public good. Tog ethe r, they form a triad and symbolize the over arching Doctrine of Public Policy. G. ARTICLE 14 : BEDROCK OF THE PRINC IPLES OF NAT URAL JUSTICE 34. Principle s of natural justic e that are reflected in Artic le 311 , are not an empty incantation. They form th e very bedrock of Article 14 and any vi olat ion of the se princ iples tantamoun ts to a viola tion of Arti cle 14 of the Constitution . Den ial of the principles of natural justice to a p ublic servant can invalidate a deci sion taken on the ground that it is hit b y the vice of a rbitrariness and would result in dep riving a public servant of equal prote ction of l aw . 35. Article 14 , often de scribed as the ‘Con stituti onal Gua rdian ’ of the princip les of natu ra l justice , ex pressly forbi ds the S tate , as defined in Article 12 , from denying to any person , equality before the la w or equal protection o f the law s. Art icle 14 pr ov ides an CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 21 of 59 expres s guarantee of equ ality befo re the law to all persons and exten ds a protection to them against discrimi nation by any law. Article 13 (3)(a) d efines law to include any ordinance, order, b ye -law, rule , regulation , not ification , cust om or usag es having in the terr itor y of Indi a, the force of la w. Thu s, principles of natu ral justice guarantee d under Article 14 , prohibit a decision -mak ing adjudicato ry aut hority from tak ing any arbitrary action , be it su bstanti ve or proced ur al in n ature . These pri nc iples of natural justice , that are a nat ural law , ha ve evolved over a period of time and been continuously refined through the process of expansive judicia l inte rpretation. H. THE TWIN ANCHORS : NEMO JUDEX IN CAUSA SUA AND AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM 36. Th e twin an chors on which the principles of natural justic e re st in the ju dic ial process, whether quasi -judi cial or administrative in nature , ar e Nemo Judex In C aus a Sua , i.e., no person shall be a judge in his own cause as justic e should not only b e don e, but shoul d mani festly be seen to b e done and Audi Alteram Partem , i.e. a person affected by a judicial , quasi -judicial or administrative action must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before any decision is taken . 37. How de eply have Courts internal ised and inc orpora ted the principles of na tural justice into the Consti tution can be pe rceived from the seven Judge Bench decision in the case of Maneka Ga ndhi v . Union of India and Another 44. In t his ca se, where a challenge was laid to the order of impoun ding th e pa ssport of the appellant, wh ich was 44 (19 78 ) 1 S CC 248 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 22 of 59 silent on the reas on s for such an action and the respondent –State had decline d to furnish the reason theref or, it was held that li fe and liberty of a person cannot be restricted by any procedure that is esta bli shed b y law , but o nly by procedure that is just , fair and re as onable . Quoting the audi alter am part em rule and equating it with “fair play in action ”, Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as he then was) had auth ored the judg me nt for the majorit y an d had observed that : “14. ……The aud i alteram partem rule is not cast in a rigid mould and judicial decisions establish that it may suffer situational modifications. The c ore of it must, however, remain, namely, t hat the per son af fected must ha ve a reasonable opportunity of being hear d and t he hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an em pty p ublic relations exercise. That is why Tucker, L.J., emphasised in Russel v . Duke of Norfolk 45 that "whatever standard of na tural jus tice is ad opted, one essential is th at the person co ncerned s hould hav e a reasonable oppor tunity of presenting his case" . W hat opportunity may be regarded as reasonable would necessarily depend on the prac tical necessities of the situation. It may be a sop histicat ed full -fledged hearing or i t may be a heari ng which is very b rief and minimal : it may be a hearing prior to th e d ecision or it may even be a post - decisional remedial hearing. The audi alteram par tem rule is sufficiently flexible to permi t modific ations a nd variations to suit the ex igencies of myri ad kinds of situat ions which ma y arise ……….” 38. In the captioned case , citing the judgment of a Constitution Bench of this Court in Rustom Cavasjee Co oper v. Union of India 46, wherein it was held th at fundamental righ ts a re not a water t ight compartment , the Court ob served as under :- “The princip le of reasonableness, w hich l egally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non -arbitra riness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and t he proce dure contemplated by Article 21 mu st answer the test of reason ableness in order to be in conform ity wi th Article 14 ” The emp hasis was on the Court ‘s attempt to exp and the reach and ambit of the fundamental rights guaranteed in t he C onstitution rat her than atten uate their meaning 45 1949 1 ALL ER 109 46 (197 0) 1 SCC 24 8 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 23 of 59 and c onte nt by a process of judicia l constructio n. Rel ying on the m inor ity ju dgment rendered by Justice F azal Ali in the case of A.K. Gop alan v . State of Madr as 47, this Court went on to hold in Maneka Gand hi ’s case (supra) that th e proced ur e required to be prescribe d under A rticl e 21 must include four es senti als namely, notice , oppo rtunity to be heard, impartial tribunal and ordinary course of procedure. It was obse rved that even on principle , having regard to the i mpact of Articl e 14 on A rticle 21 , the concept of re asonableness must be projected in the p rocedure con templated b y Arti cle 21 . 39. In Delhi Transport Corporation v. D .T.C. Mazdoor Congress and Others 48, a five-Judge Bench of this Court highlighted ho w essential it is to afford a reas onable opportunity to an em ployee to put for th h is ca se in a dome stic inquiry and the req uireme nt of an employ er to comply with the princip les o f natural justice and fair play , in the following words : “202. ……It is now w ell settled that the ‘audi alteram partem’ rule which in esse nce, enforces th e equali ty clause in A rticle 14 of the Constit ution is applicable not only to quasi -judicial orders but to administrative orders affecti ng prejudicially the party -in-question unle ss the application of the rule has been expressly excluded by the Act or Regu lation o r Rule which i s not the case here. Rul es of natural justice do not supplant but supplement the Rules and Regulations. Moreover, the Rule of Law which perm eates our Constit ution demands that it has to be ob served both substantially a nd procedurally .…... Rule of law posit s that the power is to b e exer cised in a manner which is just, fair and reasonable a nd not in an unreasonable, cap ricious or arbitrary manner leaving room fo r discrimination …... [emphasis add ed] xxx xxx xxx 47 1950 SCC 2 28 48 (1991) Supp (1) SCC 600 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 24 of 59 316. Thu s it could be held that Article 14 rea d with Article 16(1) acc ords r ight to an equality or an equal treatment consistent with the principles of nat ural justice. Any law made or act ion taken by th e employer, corporate statutory or instrumentality under Arti cle 12 must act fa irly, justly and rea sonably. Right to fair t reatme nt is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. Exercise of unbridled and un canalised discretionary power impinge s upon the right of the citizen; vesting of discre tion is no wrong provided i t is exercised pur posively judiciously and without prejudice. Wider the discretion, the greater the chances of abuse. Absolute discretion i s destru ctive of freedom than of man's o ther inventions. Absolute discretion marks the beg inning of the end of the li berty . The conferm ent of absolute powe r to dismiss a permanent emplo yee is antithesis to justness or fair treatment. The exercise of discre tionary power wide off the mark would br eed arbitrary, u nreasonable or unfair actions and would not be consistent wit h reason and justi ce. The provisions o f a statute, regulations or ru les that empower an employer or the management to dismiss, remove or re duce in rank of an employee, must be con sistent with jus t, reasonable and fair procedure. It would, further, be held that right to publ ic employment which includes right to contin ued pu blic employment till the employee is superannuated as per rules or comp ulsorily reti red or duly terminated in a ccordance with t he procedure established by law is an integral part of right to livelihood whic h in turn is an inte gral facet of right to l ife as sured by Article 21 of the Constitution . Any procedure prescribed to de prive su ch a right to livelihood or cont inued employment must be just, fair and reasonable procedure. In other words an employee in a p ublic employment als o must not be arbitraril y, unj ustly and unreasonably be deprived of his/her livelihood which is ensur ed in co ntinu ed employment till it is te rminated in acco rdance with just, fair and reasona ble procedure. Otherwise an y law or rule in v iolation thereof is void. ” [emphasis added] 40. The significant role played by procedur al fairness in the backdrop of interna lis ing the p rinciple s of n atural ju stice into the Const itution can not be ov er stated. Thi s aspect ha s been highlight ed by a Division B ench of this Court of which one of us, [Hima Kohli , J], was a member , in Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v . Union of India & O thers 49. Speaking for the Bench, Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud sta ted : “53 . The judgment of this Court i n Ma neka Ga ndhi (supra ) spearheaded two doctrinal shif ts on proced ural fair ness be cause of the constitutionalising of natural justice. Firstly, procedural fairness was no longer viewed merely as a mean s to secure a just o utcome but a requirement that holds an inher en t value in itself. In 49 (2023) SCC O nline 36 6 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 25 of 59 view of this shif t, the Courts ar e now pre cluded from solely assessing procedural infringements based on whether the procedure would have prejudiced the outcome of the case. Instead, the c ourts would have to decide if the p roce dure that was foll owed infringed upo n the r ight to a fair and reasonabl e proce dure, independent of the outcome . In compliance with this line of thought, the courts have read the principles of natur al justice into an e nactment to save it from being decl ared unco ns titutional on procedural grou nds. Secondly, natural jus tice prin ciples breat he reasonableness into the procedure. Responding to the argument that the principles of natural justice are not st atic but are capable of being moulded to the circumstan ces, it w as held that the core of natura l jus tice guar antees a rea sonable p rocedur e whi ch is a constitutional requirement entrenched in Articles 14, 19 and 21. The facet of audi alterum partem encompas ses the components o f notice, contents of the notice, r epor ts of inquiry, and materials that ar e avai lable fo r perusal. W hile situ ational modi fications are permissible, the rules of natural justice cannot be modified to suit the needs of the situation to s uch an extent that t he core of the principle is abrogat ed b ecaus e it is the c ore that infuses p rocedural reas onableness. The burde n is on the applicant to prove that the procedure that was followed (or not followed) by the adjudicating authority, in effect , infringes upon the core of the right to a fair and re ason able he aring .” - [emphasis supplied ] 41. In A.K. Kraipak and Other s v . Unio n of India and Others 50 qu oting with approval the judgment In re : H.K. (All Infant )51, this Court held that : "20. The aim of th e rules o f natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negative ly to p revent miscarriag e of justice. These rules c an operat e only in areas not co ver ed by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the law of the land but suppleme nt it . The conc ept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in rece nt years. In the past it was thought that i t include d just two rules namen y: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case ( Nemo debet esse judex propria causa ) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a rea sonable hearing ( audi alteram partem ). Very soon thereafter a third ru le was envisaged and that is that quasi -judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unre asonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very rece ntly it was the opinio n of the courts that u nless the a uthority conc erned was r equired by the law under which it functioned to act judic ially there was no room f or the application of t he rules of natura l justice. The validity of that l imitation i s now que stioned. If the purpos e of the rules of natu ral justice is to pr even t miscarria ge of justice one fails to see why those rules s houl d be made inapplicable to adm inistrative enquiries. Of ten times it is no t easy to draw the line that dem arcates admi nistrativ e enquiries from quasi -judicial enquiries. Enquiries w hich were con sidered adm inistrative at one time are now being considered as quasi -jud icial in 50 (1969 ) 2 S CC 262 51 (1967 ) 1 All ER 226 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 26 of 59 character. A rriving at a just decisio n is the aim of bo th quasi - judicial enquiries as well as admi nistrativ e enquiries. An unjust decision in an admin istrative inquiry ma y ha ve more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi - judi cial inqu iry……….” - [Emphasis suppl ied ] I. FAIR ACTION AND IMPARTIALITY IN S ERVICE JURISPRUDENCE: 42. In the conte xt of se rvice law, it is , therefore mandatory to afford a Government se rvan t or an employee , a reaso nable opportunity of being hea rd before an or der is pass ed. In Ma ngi lal v . State of M.P .52, this Court declared that eve n if a Statute is silen t and there are no po sitive word s in the Act or the Rules ma de thereunder, principles o f na tural justice must be observed. This is wh at the Cou rt has held: “10….Where th e statu te is silent about the observance of th e principles of na tural justice, su ch statutory silence is tak en to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substa ntial rights of pa rties are considerab ly affecte d. The applicat ion of natu ral jus tice b ec omes presumptive, unless found excluded by expres s words of statut e or necessary intendment. (See Swades hi Cotton Mill s v. Union of Indi a53 ) Its aim is to secure justic e or to pr event m iscarriage of justice. Pri nciple s of natural justice do not supplant the law, but sup plement it. The se rules opera te onl y in areas not covered by any law validly ma de. They ar e a means to an end and no t an end in themselves …..” 43. In Tulsi ram Patel ’s case (supra) , observ ing that vi olation of the rule s of nat ural justic e would result in arbitrarines s which wo uld amount t o disc rimination , the Cons titution Bench made the following o bservation s : “95 . The principles of natural j ustice have thus come to be recogn ized as being a part o f the guarantee contain ed in Artic le 14 because of the new and dynamic inter pret ation given by thi s Court to the concept of equality which is the subject -matter of that arti cle. Shortly put, the syllo gism runs thus: violation of a rul e of nat ural justice r esults in arbitrariness whic h is t he sam e as discrimination; where discrimin atio n is the re sult of State action, it is a violation of Article 14: 52 (2004) 2 S CC 4 47 53 (1981) 1 SCC 664 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 27 of 59 therefo re, a violation of a principle of natural justi ce by a State action is a vi olatio n of Art icle 14. Artic le 14, however, is not the s ole re po sito ry of the principles of natural just ice. What it do es is t o guarantee that any law or State action vio lating them will be struck down . The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legis lation and Sta te action but also wher e any tribu na l, a uthority or body of men, not coming with in the defi nition of State in Article 12, is charged with the duty of dec iding a matter. In s uch a case, the principles of natural justice require t ha t it must de cide such matt er fairly and impartial ly. 96. Th e rule of natural justice with which we ar e co ncerned in these a ppeals and writ petitions, namely, the audi alteram par tem rule, in its fullest amplitude means that a person against whom an orde r to h is preju dice may be pa ssed should be inform ed of t he all eg atio ns and charges against him, be given an opportunity of sub mitting his explanation thereto, have the ri ght to know the evidence, both oral or documentary, by whi ch the matter is proposed to be de cided ag ainst him, and to inspect the docum en ts wh ich ar e reli ed upon for the purpose of being use d ag ainst him, to have the witnesses who are to give evidence agai nst him exa mined in his presence and have the right to cro ss - examine them, and to lead his o wn evide nce, both oral and documentary, in his def ence. Th e pr ocess of a fair hearing need not, ho weve r, conform to the judicial process in a Court of law, because judicial ad judication of causes involves a number of techn ical rules of procedure and ev iden ce which are unnecessa ry and not required f or the purpos e of a fair hearing within the meaning of audi alteram pa rtem rule in a quasi -judicial or administrative inq uiry. If we look at clause (2) of Article 311 in the light of what is stated above, it will be appar ent that that clause is merely an exp ress statem en t of the audi alteram partem rule which is i mplicitly m ade par t of the guarantee contained in Article 14 a s a result of the interpretation placed upon that article by recent decisions of this Co urt. Clause (2) of Article 311 requires that be fore a govern me nt s ervant is dismissed, removed or redu ced in rank, an inquir y must be held in which he is informed of th e charges a gainst him and given a reasonable opportunity o f being heard in respect of those charges …….” - [emphasis supplied ] At the sa me time , a n ote of caution wa s adde d in the capt ioned case and the Cou rt observed that the rules of natural justice are neithe r sta tutory rules nor are they cas t in stone . They are fle xible and can be adap ted an d modifi ed by statu tes, depending on the exig encies of differe nt situation s, the fact s and circumstances of the ca se and the framework of the law 54. 54 Also refer : A.K. Kraipak and others v. Union of Ind ia and Oth ers, (1969 ) 2 SCC 262 and Union of In dia v . Co l. J.N. Sin ha and A not her , (19 70) 2 S CC 458 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 28 of 59 44. In Swadeshi Cott on Mills v . Un ion of India 55, in his dissenting judgment , Justice O. Chinna ppa Reddy , had mad e t he fo llowing pertinent observations :- “10 6. The principle s of natural justice have taken deep root in the judicial conscience of our people, nurtured by Dr . Bin a pan i56, A.K. Kraipa k57, Mohi nd er Singh Gil l58, Ma neka Gandh i59. They a re now considered so fundamental as to be “implicit in the concept of or dered liber ty and, therefore, implicit in eve ry decision - making fun ction , call it judicial, quasi -judicial or adm inistrative . Where autho rity functions unde r a st atute and the statute provides for the obse rvance of the principles of natural justice i n a pa rticular ma nner, natural justice will hav e to be observed in th at m an ner and in no other. No wider right than tha t provided by statute ca n be claimed nor ca n the right be narro wed. Whe re the statute is sil ent about the observance of the principles of natur al justice, such statutory silence is tak en t o imply compl iance wit h the principles of natural justice. The impli cation of n atural justic e being presumptive it ma y be excluded by expre ss words of statute o r by necessary intendment. Where the conflict is be tween the public interest and the private int erest, the pr esump tion must necessarily be weak and may, therefore, be readily displace d……” - [emphasis supplied ] 45. Thus, o rdin arily , courts inte rpret statu tor y pro visi ons in sync with the aforesaid princi ples of natural justice on a pr emise that no st atut ory authority wo uld violat e the fun dame ntal rig hts enshrined in the Constitutio n. Whe n it co mes to a uth orities that are expected to discharge jud icial and q ua si-jud icia l fun ctions , the rule of audi alteram partem applies with equal force . Reasonablene ss infuses lifeblo od in proced ural matters, be i t elements of the notice , the conte nts of the no tice , the s cope of inquiry , t he material ava ilable or an adequate o pportunit y to rebut such material. All of thi s is to avoid 55 (19 81) 1 S CC 664 56 AIR 1967 SC 12 69 57 (1969) 2 SCC 262 58 (197 8) 1 SCC 405 59 (19 78 ) 1 SCC 248 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 29 of 59 miscarriage of justice at any sta ge . This is of co urse fluid and subject to adapting t o the demands of a situation in the gi ven facts of a case. J. THE STATUTORY REGIME (a) GOA UNIVERSITY STAT UTE 46. In the abov e bac kg round, we may now proceed to examine the relevant R ules that govern the cond itions of serv ice of the appel lant herei n. The Statu tory regime in respect of teachers emplo yed in the respondent no. 2 – University is governed by the Goa University Stat ute SS B-1 (XXV I). SC -6( i) of the Statute con templates as follows – “For disc iplinar y and dep artme ntal action, the teachers sh all be gov erne d under the CCS (CCA ) Rules, 1965, Fundamental Rules and Supp lementary Rules as applicable to the employees of th e Goa Government ”. (b) CCS ( CCA) RULE S : 47. The CC S (CCA ) Rules mentio ned above, hav e be en enacted by the President of India in exercise of the powers conferr ed by the provi so to Article 3 09 a nd Clause 5 of Article 148 of the Constitution of India. Part VI of the CC S (CCA ) Rules lay s dow n the proce dures for imposi ng pen alties . Rule 3 (C) has been incorpora ted in the CCS (CCA ) Rules vide GSR 49 dated 7 th March, 1998 and subseq uently , vide GSR 82 3 (E) dated 19 th November, 2014 . The said provision states as follows: - “3C . Prohibition of sexual haras sment of wo rking women (1) No Governmen t se rvant shall in dulge in any act of se xual hara ssment of any women at any work place. (2) Ev ery Government servant who is in charge of a work place shall take appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment to any woman at the work plac e. Explanation – (1) For the purpose of this rule – (a) "sexual h arassment " includes any one or more of the follo wing acts or behaviour (whether directly or by implication ), namely – CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 30 of 59 (i) physical contact and advances; or (ii) a demand or reque st for sexual favours; or (iii) ma king sexually co loured remarks; or (iv) showing pornography; or (v) any ot her unwel come ph ysical, verbal or non -verbal conduct o f a s exual natur e.” (c) PRAGMATIC APPLICATION OF THE “AS FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE ” RULE 48. Rule 1 4 of the CCS (CCA ) Rules stipula tes the procedure for imposing majo r penalt ies and is extracted be low : “14 . Procedu re for impos ing major penaltie s (1) No order imposin g any of t he penalt ies specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 sh all be made except af ter an in quiry held, as far as ma y be, in the mann er prov ided i n thi s rule and rule 15, or in the m anner p rovided by the Pub lic Servants (I nquiries ) A ct, 1850 (37 of 1850), whe re such i nqui ry is held under that Ac t. (2) Whenever the disci plinary auth ority is of the op inion that there are gro unds for inquirin g into the tr uth o f any imputation of misconduct or misb eh aviour ag ainst a Gove rnment ser vant, it ma y itself inquire into, or appoint u nder this rule or under the provisions of the Publ ic Servants (Inquirie s) Act, 1 850, as the case may be, an authority to inquire into the t ruth thereof. Provided that wh ere the re is a com plaint of se xual haras sment wi thi n the meaning of rule 3 C of the Ce ntra l Civil Services (Conduc t) Rules, 1964, the Complaints Com mittee es tablished in each Ministry or Dep artment or Office for in quirin g int o such complaints, shall be dee med - to be the inq uiring autho rity appoi nted by the disciplinary au thority fo r the pur pose of these rules and the Complaints Committee s hall hold, i f separat e procedu re has not been prescrib ed for the Compla ints Committe e for holding the inquiry into the c omplain ts of sexua l haras sment , the inqu iry as far as practicable in accorda nce with the procedure laid down in th ese rules. ” - [emphas is supplied ] 49. As ca n be seen f rom t he a bove, when the misconduct relate s to a complaint of sexual harassment at the work pla ce , t he Comp laints Co mmittee constituted by the res pondent no.2 -Univer sity to exami ne such a complaint , dons the man tle of the inquiring author ity and is expected to conduct an inquiry i n accordance with the procedure CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 31 of 59 pres cribed in the rules, as far as ma y be prac ticable. The use of the expres sion “as far as is practica ble ” indicates a play in the joints available to the Complain ts Committee to adop t a fair pr oced ure that is feasible and elastic for cond uct ing an inquiry i n a sensitive matter like sexual harassment at the w or kplace , without compro mising on the pr inciples of natural justice . Needless to state that the fact sit uation in each case will vary and therefore no set standards or yardstick can be laid down for condu cting the inquiry in complaints of this nature. Howeve r, hav ing regard to the serious ramifications wi th which the delinquent empl oyee may be vi sited at t he end of the inquiry , any discordant note or unreasonable deviat ion from the sett led pro cedures req uired to be followed , would however strike at the co re of the principle s of natural ju stice , notwithsta nding the fin al outcome. K. JOURNEY FROM “VISHAK A” CASE TO THE P oSH ACT (a) VISHAKA GUIDELINES : FILLING IN THE V ACUUM : 48. The occas ion to amen d Rule 14 (2 ) of t he CCS (CCA ) Rules and app en d a provis o the reto was a direct consequence of judicial interv en tion by this Co urt in t he cas e of Vi sha ka (sup ra), where the powers ve sted under Article 32 o f the Constitution of In dia were exer cise d by a three -Judge Bench to enforce the fundam ental ri ghts of women to “gender equality an d right to li fe and li ber ty”, besto wed unde r A rticles 1 4, 15 , 19( 1) (g) and 21 of t he Const itution of India . Treating a set of writ petit ion s file d b y some social activists and NG Os , who were agitating the b ru tal gang ra pe o f a social wo rker in a CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 32 of 59 village of Rajast ha n as a class acti on, this Co urt w ork ed towards f illing in the vacuum in the exis ting legisl ation . Noting the ab sence of any Statu te en acte d to provide for effec tive enf orcem ent of the basic human right of gend er equality and guarantee against sexual abu se , par ticularly against se xu al ha ras smen t at wor k p laces , the C ourt drew strength from several prov isions of the Constitution of India inclu ding Article 15 60, Article 42 61 and A rticle 51 (A )62 and with the a id of the relevant Intern ational Convent ions and norm s including the General Recommendation s of the CEDAW 63 that had passed a Reso lutio n on 25th June , 1993 , resolving that an effective complaint mech anism be put in place to add re ss sexual harassment in t he work pla ce , laid down a s et of Guid eli nes and norms with a direct ion that the y woul d be str ictly adhered to at all wor k pl aces and sha ll be bin din g an d enforceab le in law till the vacuum was fi lled and a legisl atio n wa s ena cted to occup y the fi eld . The Guidelines dire cted creation of a complaints mechanism to ensure time bound treatment of compl aints , consti tution of a Compla ints Committ ee and recommended , disciplinary action where such conduct amounted to misco nduct in employmen t ‘as defined by the relevan t servic e rules ’. The momentous jud gment in Vishak a’s case (supra) was delive re d on 13 th August, 1997 and the Guide lin es declar ed by th e Court continued to hold the field t ill the Se xu al Harassm ent of Women at 60 Article 15 : The State shall not d iscriminat e against any citizen on ground s of religion , race , caste, sex , pla ce of birth of any of them. 61 Article 42 : The S tate sha ll mak e provisions for secu ring just and humane condi tions of w ork and fo r maternity relief . 62 Article 51(A) : (e) ……. It shall be the duty of ev ery citizen o f India to, amon gst others, renounce practices dero gat ory to the dignity of wo men . 63 The Conv ent ion on th e Elim ination of All Forms of D iscri mination Again st Women CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 33 of 59 W ork place ( Prev enti on, Prohibi tion and Red ressa l) Ac t, 2013 64 was enacte d on 22 nd Apri l, 2013 . (b) MEDHA KOTWAL LELE ’S CASE : FOLLOW UP THROUGH CONTINUING MANDAM US : 49. After Vishak a’s case (supra) , came the case of Medha Kotwal Lele and Others v. Union of In dia and Other s65 (sup ra) wher e a grie van ce was rai sed by sever al pe titioners that the Complaints Committees directed to be constitu ted in terms of the Guid elines laid down b y this Court , had not been established to deal with case s of se xual har assment . Trea ting t he said petition as a Publi c Interest Litig ation , notices w ere issued to s evera l parti es including the U nion of In dia and t he State Governments and the followi ng dire ctions were issued : “2……“Complaints Commit tee as envisaged by the Supr eme Cou rt in its j udgment in Vishaka cas e SCC at para 53 , will be deemed to b e an inquiry aut hority for the purp oses of the Central Civil Serv ices (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter call ed the CCS Ru les ) and the report of the Complaints Commit tee shall b e deeme d to be an inquiry report un der the CCS Rules. The reafter the disci plin ary authority wil l act on the r eport in acc ordance with the Rule s.” A s imilar amen dment was also directed t o be ca rried ou t in th e I ndus trial Employme nt (Stand ing Orders ) Rules . 64 For sho rt ‘PoSH Act’ 65 (2013) 1 SCC 311 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 34 of 59 50 . On 17 th January, 2006, in the very s ame case of Medha Kotwa l Lele 66, not ing that there was no in formation av ailable regarding impl ementa tion of the directions issued in Vishak a’s c ase (su pra), this Cou rt issue d the following directions : “2. It is no t known whet he r the commi ttees as s uggested in Visha ka ca se have been consti tuted in all the de pa rtme nts/instit utions having members of staf f of 50 and above and in most of the district -level o ffices in all the State s, members of the staff working i n some offices woul d be more tha n 50. It i s not kn own whether th e co mmit tees as env isaged in Vishaka c as e ha ve been co ns tituted in all these office s. The number of complaints received and the s teps ta ken in these complaints are also no t available. We find it nece ssary t o giv e some more directions in this regard: 2.1. We fi nd t hat in orde r to coordinate the steps taken in this regard, there should be a State -level officer i.e. either the Secretar y of th e Women and Ch ild Welfa re Department or any other suitab le offi cer who is i n charge and concerned with the welfare of wo men and children in each State. The Ch ief Se cretaries of each State shall see that an officer is appointed as a nodal agent to co llect t he deta ils and to give suitable directions whenever nece ssary. 2.2. As rega rds factories , shops an d commer cial establish ment s are concerned , the directions ar e not fully comp lied with. The Labour Commiss ioner of each State shall take steps in that d irectio n. They shall work as n odal agency as regards shops, fac tories and com merci al establishm ents are c oncerned . They shall a lso collect the det ails regarding the co mpla ints and a lso see that the required com mi ttee is established in such institutions. ” 51. Exe rcising its po we rs of a writ of con tinu ing mandamus , the afores aid pet ition was again ta ken up aft er the passage of over six years, on 19th October, 2012 67 whe n this Court exami ned th e a ffid avits f iled by e ach S tate Governmen t to satisfy itself on the compl iance of the Guidel ines laid down in Vish ak a’s cas e (sup ra). On examin ing the position regardi ng amendm ent s required to be carried out in the CC S(CCA) Rules and the Stan ding Orders as also the establishm en t and composition of t he Complaints 66 (2013) 1 SCC 312 67 (2013 ) 1 SCC 297 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 35 of 59 Committe es, the Cour t note d with great dismay that several Stat e Govern ments had fail ed to make compl iances . Ext racted below are the obs er vations ma de in t his regard : “43 . As the largest d emocracy in the worl d, we have to combat viol ence aga inst women. We are of the c onside red view that the exist ing laws, if necessary, be revised and app ropri ate new laws be enac ted by Parl iament and the S tate Legislatures t o protect w omen from any form of i ndecency, indig nity and disres pect at all pla ces (in their homes as we ll a s outs ide), prevent all forms of vi olence — domestic violence, se xual as sault, sexua l harassment at the wor kplace, etc. —and provide new initiatives fo r education and advancement of wom en and girls in all sph eres of life. After al l they h ave limitless pot enti al. Li p serv ice, hollow statements and inert and inadequate law s with sloppy enfor cement are no t enoug h f or true and genuine upli ftme nt of our half most precio us po pulation —the women . 44. In what w e hav e d iscusse d ab ove, we are of the considered vie w t hat guidel ines i n Vishak a should not re main symbolic and the follow ing fur ther directi ons are neces sary un til legisla tive enactment o n the subject is in place: 44. 1. The States and Unio n Territories wh ich h ave not ye t ca rried out a dequate and approp riat e a mend ments in the ir respective Civil Ser vices Conduct Rules (by what ever na me thes e Rul es are called ) shall do so with in two months fr om today by providi ng that the rep ort of the Complai nts Committee sh all b e d eemed t o be an inquiry report in a disci plin ary act ion un der su ch Civil Services Condu ct Rules. In other words, th e disci plinary auth ority shall t reat th e r eport/fi ndings, etc. of the Complaints Comm ittee as th e fi nd ings in a discip linary inquiry a gains t t he deli nque nt employee and sha ll act on such report accor dingly . The findings and the report of the Complaints Com mittee shall n ot be treated as a mere p rel iminary investigation or inq uiry leading to a discipli nary action but shall be treated as a findi ng/ report in a n inquiry i nto the misconduct of the del inquen t. 44. 2. The States and Union Territories whi ch have not carried out am endme nts in the In dustria l E mploymen t (Standing Orde rs) Rules shall now carry out amen dm ents on the same lines, as noted abov e i n para 44.1 within two months. 44.3. The Sta tes and Union Terri tories shall form adequ ate number of Complaints Com mittees so as to en sure that the y funct ion at talu ka level, distri ct level and State level. Thos e St ates and/or Union Territories whic h hav e f ormed o nly one committ ee for t he entire Stat e s hall now f orm ad equate number of Compla ints Committees within two m onths f rom tod ay. E ach of such C omplain ts Committe es shall be head ed by a woman and a s far as po ssib le in such committ ees an independe nt me mbe r shall be associated. 44.4. The State funct ion arie s and privat e and public sector und ertakings/ organisations/ bod ies/ins titutio ns, e tc. shall put in plac e suffici ent mechanism to e nsur e full impleme ntation of Vish aka guidelines and further provide that if the al leged harasser i s found guilty, the co mpl ainant vic tim is not forced to work wit h/under such harasser and w here ap propria te an d possible th e allege d harasse r should be transf erre d. Further pro vision shoul d b e m ade that harass ment and intimida tion of witnes ses a nd the comp lainants shall be met wit h severe discipl inary action. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 36 of 59 44.5. The Bar Council of India shall ensure that a ll Ba r Association s in the country and persons regist ered with the Stat e Bar Counci ls fol low Vishaka guidelines. Similarly, the M edica l C ouncil of I ndia, Counc il of Ar chitecture, In stitute of Ch artere d Accountants, Institut e of Company Secret aries and other statut ory institu tes sha ll ensur e that th e organisations, b odie s, association s, instituti ons an d persons regis tered/affiliated with the m foll ow th e guideline s laid d own by Vishaka . To achieve this, nec essary instructions/ circulars shall be issued by all t he stat utory bodies such as the B ar Counci l of India, Medica l Co uncil of India , Council of Archi tecture, Instit ute of Company Se creta rie s with in tw o months fr om today . On receipt o f a ny complai nt of sex ual harassment at an y of the places ref erred to above the sam e sha ll be dealt w ith by t he statut ory bodies in acco rdan ce with Vishak a and Others v. Stat e of Rajasthan and Others (1997) 6 SCC 241 , guidelines and the g uid elines in t he present order. ” (c) ENACTMENT OF THE PoSH ACT AND RULES : 52. After the pas sag e of fifteen year s from the date of the verdict del ive red in Vishak a’s cas e (sup ra) , the PoSH Act , was legislated on 22 nd April, 2013 and finally not ified on 9 th Decemb er, 201 3. The Act lays dow n a c omprehensive mechani sm for con stitu tion of Internal Compla ints Com mittee , Loc al Committee and Internal Committee s, the manner o f c ondu cti ng an inquiry into a complaint recei ved , duties of an employer, duties and powers of the District Officer and others , penalties for non - compliance of the p rovision s o f the A ct, etc. Accompanying t he Act are the Rules , 2013 68 that have been framed in exercise of power s conferred under Section 2 9 of the PoSH Act and amongst others, lays down the m anner in which an inquiry into a complaint of sexu al har assment ou ght to be co ndu cted (Rule 7 ), t he interi m rel iefs that can be exten ded to the aggrieved women during the pendency of the inquiry (Rule 8) , the manner of taking action for sexual haras sment ( Rule 9) etc. It is noteworth y that sub -rule (3) of Rule 7 68 The Sexual Harassme nt of Women at Work Pace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 37 of 59 provi des that the re spo ndent s hall file his repl y to the complaint within a stipu late d time along wit h the rel evant documents and give details of the witness es and sub -rule (4) stipulates that the Complaints Committee shall make an inquiry into th e complaints “in accordance w ith the pr inciples of natura l ju stice ”. (d) BREATHING REASONABL ENESS INTO THE P ROCEDURAL REGIME : 53. Th us , it can be s ee n tha t the journey from Vishaka ’s case (supra) that acted as a spr ing board and sowed the seeds of future legislation by structuring G uidelines to deal with case s of sexual harassme nt, blossome d into a comprehensiv e legi slation w ith the enactment of the PoSH Act an d Rules . At the same time , h owever , women centr ic the Guide lines and the Act may have been , the y both recognize the fact that a ny inqu iry into a complai nt of sexual harassme nt at the work place must be in ac cord ance with th e relevant rules and in line with the p rinciples of natural justice. The cardinal princ ipl e requ ired to be borne in mind is that the person accus ed of misconduct mu st be informed of the case, must be supplied the evidenc e in support ther eo f an d be given a reasonable opportu nity to present his version before a ny adverse decision is taken. Similarl y, the concerned employer is also expected to act fairly and adopt a pr oce dur e that is just , fair and reasonable . Th e whole purpose is to breathe rea sonable ness into the procedural regime. But, the t est of reasonableness cannot be abstract . It has to be pra gmatic and grounded in the reali ties of the facts and circumstances of a case . W hen cond ucting an inquiry, it i s the dut y of the Inquiring Authori ty to proceed in a manner that is visibly free CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 38 of 59 from the taint of arbitrariness , unreasonableness or unfa irnes s. An inq uir y that can culminate into imposition of a major pena lty like termination of service of an em ployee , must doubl y co nform to a jus t, fai r and reasonable procedure. Any displacement of th e principles of natural j ustice can only be in excep tional circum stances , as contemplated in the proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Cons titut ion of I ndia and not otherwise . W her ever the rule s are silent , pri nciples of natural justice must be read into them and a hearing be afforded to the p erson who is proposed to be puni shed with a major penalty 69. 54. The four predo minant purposes sou ght to be achieved by reading the principles of natural justice into law and in to the conduct of judicial and administrative proce edings to achieve the underlying object of securing fairness hav e been concisely expressed by this Court as an assurance of a fai r outcome by follo wing the procedural Rules, an assurance of equality in t he proceedings, legitimacy of the decision and decis ion - making authority thereby preserving the integrity of the sy stem and finally, with the idea of preserv ing the dignity of ind ividuals where cit izen s are treated with respect and the dignity they deser ve in a society governed by the Rule of Law 70. L. AN ALYSIS AND DISCUSSION : 55. In the present case , the incidents in question relate to the period wh en the Visha ka Guidelines were in place and it had b een clarified in Medha Kotwal Lele (supra) that the Compla ints Committee will be deemed to be an inquiry auth ority for the 69 State Ban k of Indi a and Othe rs v. Ranji t Kumar Chakra borty and An other , (2018) 1 2 SCC 807 70 Madhyam am Broadca sting Limited v. Union of India decide d on 5 th April 202 3 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 39 of 59 purposes of the CCS Rules. Keeping this in mind, we may now proceed to ascertain as to wheth er the procedure ad opt ed by the responde nts No. 2 and 3 herein violated the principles of natural just ice and thereby cau sed prejudice to the appella nt, as has been allege d, for this Court to interfer e in the impugned judgment. (a) SCOPE OF INT ERFERENCE BY THE HIGH COURT IN J UDICIAL RE VIEW : 56. It may be clarified at the outset that to satisfy itself that no injus tice has been meted out to the appellant , the High Court was required to examine the decision -making process and not jus t the final outcome . In o ther words, in exercis e of powers of jud icial review, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority over the factual findings recorded in the departmental proceedings as long as those findings are reasonably supported by e vidence and have been arri ved at through proceed ings that cannot b e faulted on account of procedural illegalities or irregul arities that may h ave vitiated the process by which the decision was arrived at. 57. The purpose of judicial review is not only to ensure that the individual co ncerned receives fair treatment, but als o to ensure that the authority, af ter according fair treat ment, reaches, a conclus ion, which is correct in the eyes of law 71. Notably, i n Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra , a matter re lated to sexual ha rassment at the wo rkpl ace 72 wh ere, aggrie ved by the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority o f accept ing the report of the Inquiry Officer and remov ing the 71 (1999) 1 SC C 759 72 Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 3 ALL ER 141 HL. Also refer : B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1 995) 6 SCC 749. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 40 of 59 respondent therein from service on the ground that he had tried to molest a la dy employee, this Court had set asid e the order of the Hig h Court that had narrow ly interpre ted the expression “s exual harassment” and held that in depar tmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is the sole judge of facts and once findings of fact, based on app reciati on of evidence are rec orded, the High Co urt in its writ jurisdiction sh ould not normally interf ere with those factual findings unless i t finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that th e findings were wholly perverse and/ or lega lly untenable. Th e Court is under a dut y to satisfy itself that an inq uiry into the allegation s of sexual harassment by a Committee is conducted in t erms of the service rules and that the concerned employee gets a reasonable op portunity to vindicate his position and establ ish his innocence 73. (b) EXTENT OF ADHE RENCE TO THE “AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE ” NORM 58. Assuming as correct, the submission mad e by learned co unsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 that the Committee was not bound to s trictly follow a step by ste p procedure for conduc tin g an inquiry ha ving due regard to the proviso to Rule 14(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules that permits a Committee to enqu ire into a complaint of sexual harassment ‘as far as practicable ’, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rules , the question t hat would still be g an answer is 73 Dr. Vijaykumaran C.P.V. v. Central Un iversity of Kerala and Other s, (2020) 12 SCC 426 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 41 of 59 wheth er the inqui ry conducted by the Comm ittee in the instant case , would meet the ‘ as far as practicable ’ norm ? 59. Rule 14 prescribes the procedure required to be followed for conducting an inquiry by a Public Authority which ent ails issu ance of a charge sheet, f urnishing de tails of the Articles of Charge, enclosing statements of imputations in respect of each article of charge, forwarding of a list of witnesses and the document s sought to be relied upon by the M anagement /empl oyer . The said pr ocedure may not have been strict ly followed by the Commi ttee in the present case , but it is not in dispu te that all the complaints received from time to time and the deposition s of the co m plainants were disclosed to the appellant. He was , the refore , well a wa re of the nature of allegat ions levelle d against him. Not only was the material proposed to be used against him during the inquiry furnished to him , he was also called upon to explain t he said material by submitt ing his reply and furn ishing a list of w itnesses , which he did . Furthermo re, o n perusing the Repo rt submitted by the Committee, it transpires t hat depositions of some of the complainants were recorded audio - visually by the Commi ttee , wherever consent was given and the appellan t was duly afforde d an opportunity to cr oss -examine the said witnesses inclu ding the complainants . The charges levelled by all the complainants were of sexual harassment by the appellant with a narration of specific instances. Th ere fore, i n CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 42 of 59 the given fac ts and circumstanc es, non -framing of the Articles of Charge by the Committee cannot be treated as fatal . Nor can t he appellant be heard t o state that he was completely in the dark as to the nature of the allegations levelled agai nst him and was not in a po sition to respond appropriately. So far , so good . (c) THE COMMITTEE ’S UNDE RSTANDING OF ITS MANDATE : 60. As noted above , when the Registrar of the respondent No. 2 –University addressed a letter to the Chairpers on of the Committe e, he f orwarded nine complain ts of sexual haras sment that had been received by the Vice Chancellor of the Univ ersity . T he process of the inquiry was set into motion on 17 th March 2009 when the appellant was informed that on receiving complaints of sexu al harassme nt agai nst him, the Co mmittee had conduc ted a preliminary verification o f the complaints by reco rding t he statement s of the concerned students. Till then, no specific Articles of Charge were framed by the Committee and no imputation of charges were forwar ded to the appellant . At the same time , copies of all the complaints received and the statemen ts recorded were forw arded directly to the appellant calling upon him to explain the charges levelled against him . 61. The plea of the appellant t hat the Committee understood the remit o f its inquiry as a ‘fact -finding proceedin g’, can be discerned from the co ntents of the letter s dated 17 th March 2009 and 20 th April 2 009 addressed to the appellant . Th e CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 43 of 59 impression car ried by the Committee that it was on ly required t o submit a fact - findin g report to the Un iversit y was no different for the EC as is borne ou t from a perusal of the Memorandum dated 8 th September 2009 , issued by the Chairman of the E C who , after receiving the Commi ttee ’s Report , informed the appellant tha t an inquiry was propo sed to be conducte d against him under R ule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. This was the first time when the respondents informed the appellant that the EC had decided to follow the procedure prescribed under the rules of drawing up a Stat em ent of Articles of C harge, imputation of misconduct in supp ort of ea ch Article of Charge and ot her documents and had granted the appellant time to submit his reply in defence. The a ppellant did su bmit a reply . But it is an admitted position that the sa id inquiry proceedings were aborted at t he initial stage itse lf and it was the Report of th e Comm ittee submitted earlier , that was acted upon by the EC in terms of a decision taken on 28th January 20 10. We are of the opinion that w hen the Committee itself was un clear as to the scope of its inqu iry, the appellant cannot be blamed for harbourin g an imp ression that the remit of the Committee was confined to fact finding alone and it was not discharging the functions of a d isciplinary c ommittee , as contemplat ed under the service R ules. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 44 of 59 (d) WHIRLWI ND PROCEEDINGS 62. On examining the records, it emerges that the point at which th e Committee fell into an error was when it attempt ed to fast forward the entire proceedings after the first few hearin gs and de clin ed to grant a reasonable time to the appellant to effectively participate in the said proceedings. It is noteworthy that the proceedings of the Committee had com menced on 16 th April 2009 and stood concluded on 5 th June, 2009. During this period , 18 meet ings were conducted by the Committee. Followin g is the month -wise details of the dates on which the mee tings of the Committee were conducted : (i) April 2009 – On 16 th,27 th and 29 th (ii) May 2009 – On 6th,12 th,13 th,14 th,19 th,20 th, 22 nd,23 rd,25 th,27 th,28 th and 29th (iii) June , 2009 – On 3rd,4 th and 5th 63. It is also noteworthy that the time span prescribed under the CCS ( CCA) Rules for conclud ing an inquiry is ordi narily within a peri od of six month s from the date of receipt of the order of appointment . But , here , the entir e process was wrapped up in flat 39 days . T his shows the tearing hurry in whi ch the Committee was to submit its Report . One such glaring instance of the over anxie ty to conclude the proceedings is apparent from the letter dated 5th May 2009 , addressed by the Committee to the a ppellant infor m ing him that the next date for filing his reply and for recording further d eposition s was 12 th June 2009. Sur pri singly, on the very CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 45 of 59 next da y, the Com mittee issued yet another letter advancing the said dates by claimi ng that an error had c rept into the previou s le tter and informing the appellant that the date for filing his rep ly should be read as ‘12 th May 2009 ’ and the date for recording fur th er depos ition s should be read as ‘14 th May, 2009 ’, thus moving the dates ba ck by a whole month . Another egregious ex ample of the hu rry and scurry shown by the Committee can be gathered from the fact that on 20 th May 2009 , the Committee had written to the appellant gi ving him a last opportunity to present himself on 20 th May 2009 , not only to complete his deposition, but also to cross - examine the complainant s and other witnesses . Simultane ously , the Committee forward ed six more depositions to the appellant and directed him to furnish his reply with in 48 hours i.e. by 22 nd May, 200 9. 64. Even if this Court was to accept the sub missio n made by learned counsel f or the respondents that the appellan t was offering flimsy excuses to somehow prolong the proceedings and the he alth ground taken by him was no t genuine, it does not explain the app roach of the Committee which was well aware of th e fact that at least six mo re depositions ha d been handed over to the appellant as late as on 20 th May 2009 . Even if he h ad been hale and h earty , he would still have required a reasonable time to respond to the additional dep ositions and simultan eously , prepare h im self for cross -examining the complainants and completing his CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 46 of 59 deposition . This can only be termed as an unreasonab le and unfair dir ection by the Committee. 65. The undue haste demonstrated by the Commit tee for bring ing th e inquiry to a closur e, cannot justify curtail ment of the right of the appellant to a fair hearing. The due process, an im portant facet of the principles of natural justi ce was seriously compromised due to the manner in which the Com mitt ee went about the tas k of conductin g the inquiry proceedings. As noted above, when the proceeding s, subject matter of the present appeal had taken place , the P oSH Act was nowh ere on the ho rizon and the field was occupied by the Vishaka Guidelines . The said G uidelines also did not exclude appl ication of the prin ciples of natural justice and fair play in making procedural compliances. The silence in the Guidelines on this aspect could not have give n a handle to the Committee to bypass the principles of na tural j ustice and w hittle down a reasona ble opportunity of affording a fai r hearing to the appellant. Th is Court has r epeatedly observed that even when the rules are silent, principles of natural justice must be read into them. In its keen anxiety of bein g fair to the victi ms/complainants and w rap up the complaints expeditiousl y, the Committee has ended up being grossly unfair to the appellant . It has completely overlooked the cardinal pri nciple that justice must not CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 47 of 59 only be done , but should manifestly be seen to be done. The principles of aud i alterem partem could not have been thrown to the winds in this cav alier manne r. (e) HOW DID THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FALTE R? 66. The error committe d on the part of the EC , is no less grave. It is apparent that t he E C continued to rema in under an impressio n that the First Committee to which the complaints were forwarded , was only a ‘ fa ct-finding Committee’ and that a full -fledged inqui ry was still required to be conducted subsequently, in the manner prescribed under R ule 14 of the CCS ( CCA) Rules. Th e r esul t was that though the Report of the First Committee was accepted and the EC pro ceeded to place the appellant under suspension , for the very first time, it decided to issue him Memorandum detailing the Articles of Cha rge and the imputat ion of charges and fu rther appointed a Fo rme r Judge of the High Court as an Inquiry Officer to condu ct the inq uiry in terms of the Rules. Respondent No s. 2 and 3 got wiser only when the sai d proceedings commenced and the Inquiry Officer was appraised of the directions issued in Med ha Kotwal’s case where it had been clarified by this Court that the Complaint s Commit te e contemplated in Vishaka’s case (supra) , will be deemed to be a n Inquir y Authority for the purposes of the CCS (Conduct) R ules and its report shall be deemed to b e a Report under the CC S (CCA) Rules. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 48 of 59 67. When the employer itself was oblivious to the remit of the Committee and the Committee remained under the very same i mpression hav ing described its proceedings as fact -finding in nature, it was a ll the more incumbent for the respond ents to have pause d on receiving the Report of the First Committee and veri fy the legal position before taking th e next step . In all this ba ck and forth, it was the procedure prescr ibed under Rule 14 for conducting an inquiry of sexual har assment at the workplace that came to be sac rificed at t he alter of expeditious dis posal , which can neither be justified nor countenanced. 68. The intent and pur pose of the proviso inserted in Rule 14(2) of CCS (CCA) Rul es and Rule 3C of C CS (Conduct) Rules is that the procedure required to be adopted for conducting an inquiry into the compl aint of se xual harassment that can lead to imposition of a major penalty u nder the Rules , must be fair, im partial and in line with th e Rules. Pertinent ly, the emphasis on a dhering to the principles of natural justice during an inquiry conducted by a Compl aints Co mm ittee finds specific mention i n Rule 7(4) of the subsequently en acted Rules of 2013 . B ut the spi rit behind the due process could never be supp ressed or ignored eve n in the absence of the Statute or the Rules inasmuch as th e principles of natural jus tice is the very essence of the decision -making process and must be rea d into every judicial or even a quasi -judicial proceeding. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 49 of 59 69. This is not to say that the Committee e ven if described as an In quiring authority , by virtue of the ruling in Medha Kotwal ’s case (sup ra ) and required to follow the procedur e prescribed under Rule 14 , was expected to conduct the inquiry as if it was a ful l-fledged trial . The expression used in the proviso to Rule 14(2), ‘ as far as practicable ’ ha s to be read and understood in a pragmatic m anner . In any such proceedings initiated by the Discipli nar y Authority , a cali brated balance would ha ve to be struck between the rights o f a victim of sexual harassment and those of the delin quent em ployee . At the same time, fairness in the procedure would have to be ne cessarily adopted in the in terest of both si des . After all, what is sauce for the goos e, is sauce for the gander. M. CONCLUSION 70. In the in stant case, though the Committee appo inted by the Disciplinary Au thority did not ho ld an inquiry strictly in terms of the step -by -step procedure laid down in Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules , noneth eless, we have seen that it did furnish copies of all th e co mplaints , the depositions of the complainants and the relevant material to the appellan t, c alled upon h im to give his reply in defence and directed him to furnish the list of witnesses that he propose d to rely on. Re cords also reveal that t he appellant ha d furnished a detailed reply in defence . He had also submitted a list of witnesses and de positions. This goes to show th at he was CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 50 of 59 well -acquainted with the natu re of allegations levelled against him and knew what he had to state in his defe nce. Given the above position, non -framing of the articles of charge cannot be said to be detrimental to the inter est of the appellant. 71. In fact , the glari ng defects and the proce dural lap ses in the inquiry proceedings took place onl y thereafter , in th e month of May , 2009 , when 12 hearings , most of them back -to -back, were conducted by the Comm ittee at a lightning speed . On the one hand, the Committee kept on forwarding to the appellant, depositions of some more complai nant s received late r on and those of other witnesses and called upon him to furnis h his reply and on the other hand , it directed hi m to come prepared to cross -examin e the said c omplain an ts and witnesses as also record his f urther deposition , all in a spa n of one week . Even if the medical grounds taken by the app ellant seemed suspect, the Committee ought to have give n him reasonable time to pr epare his defence, more so when his request for being represented through a lawy er ha d already been declined. It wa s all this undu e anxiety that had led to short -circuit ing the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Committee and damaging the very fairness of the process . 72. For the above reasons, th e appellant ca nnot be faulted for questioning the proce ss and its outcome. There is n o doubt that matter s of this nature are sensitive and have to be ha ndled with care . Th e respondents had received as CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 51 of 59 m any as seventeen complaint s from students levelling serious allegations of sexual harassmen t ag ainst the app ellant . But that would not be a g round to give a com plete go by to the procedural fairness of the inqui ry required to be c onducted , more so when the inqui ry could lead to imposition of major penalty proceeding s. W hen the legitimacy of the decision taken is dependent on the fairness of th e process and the p rocess adopted itse lf be came questionable , then the decision arrived at cannot withstand jud icial scr utiny and is wide open to interfe rence . It is not without reason that it is said that a fair procedure alone can guarantee a fair outco m e. In t his case , the anxiety of the Committee of bein g fair to the victims of sexual harassment , has ended up caus ing them grea ter harm . 73. This Court is , therefore, of the opinion that the proceedings conducted by the Committee with effect from the month of May, 2009, fell short of the “ as far as practicable ” norm prescribed in the relevant Rules. The discre tion vested in the Comm ittee for conducting the inqu iry has been exercised improperly , defying the principles of natural justice. As a consequence th ereof, the impugned judgme nt upholding the d ecision taken by the EC of terminat ing the services of the appellant , duly endorsed by the Appellate Authority cannot be sustained and is accordingly quashed and set a side with the following dir ections : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 52 of 59 (i) The m atter is rema nded back to the Complai nts Committee to take up the inquiry proceeding as they stood on 5th May 2009. (ii) The Committee shall af ford adequate opportunity to the appellant to defend himself . (iii) The appellant shall n ot seek any adjourn me nt of the proce edin gs. (iv) A Report sh all be su bm itted by t he Committ ee to the Disciplinary Authority for appr opriate orders. (v) Having regard to the long passage of time, the resp ond ents are directed to complete the entire process within three months fr om the first da te o f hearing fixed by t he Committee. (vi) The proc edure to be f ollowed by the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority shall b e guided by the principles of natural justice. (vii) The Rules applied will be as were ap plicable at the relev ant point of ti me. (viii ) The decision taken by the Committee and the Disciplinary Authority shall be purely on merits and in accordance with la w. (ix) The appellant will not be enti tled to claim immediate reinstat ement or back wages t ill the inquiry is compl eted and a de cision is t ak en by the Disciplinary Authority. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 53 of 59 N. EPILOGUE 74. Just as we celebrate a de cade of the PoSH Act being legis lated , it is time t o look back and take stock of the m anner in whi ch the mandate of the Act has been given effe ct to . The working of the Ac t is centred on the con stitution of the Internal Complaint s Com mittees (ICCs) by every employer at the w ork place and constitution of Local Committee s(LCs) and the Internal Committees (IC s) by the appropriate Government , as conte mp lated in Chap ter s II and III , respec tively of the Po SH Act . An improperly constitut ed ICC /LC /IC , would be an im pediment in conduct ing an inqu iry into a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace , as envisaged under the Statute and th e Rules. It wi ll be equally count erproductive to have an ill prepared Committee conduct a half -baked inquiry that can lead t o serious consequ ences, namely, impo sition of major penalties o n t he delinquent employee, to the point of termination of se rvice. 75. It is disquie ting to note that the re are seri ou s lap ses in the enforce ment of the Act eve n after such a long passage of time . This glaring lacuna has been rece ntly bro ught to the fore by a N ati onal daily newspaper that has condu cted and published a survey of 30 nationa l sports federation s in the country and rep ort ed that 16 out of them have not constituted an ICC till date. Where the ICC have been found to be in place, they do no t have the st ipu lated number of members or lack CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 54 of 59 the mandatory external member. This is indee d a sorry state of af fairs and refle cts poorly on all the State functionaries , public authorities , private undertakings , organizations and insti tuti ons that are duty bound to implement the PoSH Act in letter and spirit. Being a victim of such a deplorable act not only dents the self - esteem of a woman , it also takes a toll o n her emotional, mental and physical health . It is often seen t hat when women fac e sexual ha rassment at the work pla ce , they are reluc tant to report such misconduct . M any of them even dr op out from their j ob . One of the reaso ns for this reluctance to report is t hat the re is an uncertainty about who to ap proach under the Act for redress al of their grievanc e. Another is the lack of confidence in the process and its outcome . Th is social mal ad y needs urgent am elioration through robust and efficie nt implementation of the Act. To achieve this , it is imperative to educate t he complainant victim abou t the import and working of the Act. They must be made aware of how a complaint can be registere d, the procedure th at would be adopted to proces s the com plaint , the objective manner in which the IC C/LC/IC is expec ted to f unction under the Statute , the nature of consequences that th e delinquent employe e can be visited with if the complaint is found to be true , the resul t of lodging a false or a malicious compla int and the remedies that may be availab le to a compl ainant if dissatisfied with the Report of the ICC/LC/IC etc. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 55 of 59 76. Howe ver salutary this enactment may be , it will never succeed in providing digni ty and respect that women deserve at th e workplace unless and until there is strict adherence to the enforcement r eg ime and a proactive approach by all the State and non -State a ctors . If the work ing environment continues to rema in hostile , insensitive and unresponsive to th e needs of women emp loyees, the n the Act will remain an e mp ty formality. If the authorities/ma nagements/employers cannot assure them a safe and secur e w ork place, they will fear stepping out of their homes to make a dignified living and exploit their tale nt and skills to the hilt . It is, therefore , time fo r the Union Gove rnment and the State Gove rnment s to take affirmative action and make sure that the altruistic object behind enacting th e PoSH Act is achieved in real terms. O. DIR ECTI ONS 77. To fulfil the p romise that the PoSH Act holds out to working women all over the country, it is deemed appropr iate to issue the f ollowi ng directions : (i) The Un ion of India , all State G overnment s and Union Territories are directed to undertake a timebo und exercise to ver ify as to whether all the concerned Ministries , Departments , Government organizations , authori ties , Pu blic Secto r Undertaki ngs , institutions, bodies , etc. have constituted ICC s/LC s/IC s, as the case CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 56 of 59 ma y be and that the composition of the said Committee s are strictly in terms of the provisions of the PoSH Act . (ii) It shall be ensure d that necess ary info rm ation regarding the constit ution and composition of the ICC s/LC s/IC s, details of the e -mai l ID s and contact numbers of the designated pe rson(s), the proced ure prescribed for su bmitting an online complaint , as also the relevant rules, regulations and inte rnal p olicies are made readil y available on th e websi te of the concerned Authority/Functionary/ Organisation/ Institution /Body, as the case m ay b e. The inform ation furnished shall also be updated from time to time. (iii) A similar exercise shall be underta ken by all the St atutor y bodi es of professionals at the Apex level and the State level (including those regulating doct ors, lawyers, archi tects, chart ered accountants, cost accou ntan ts, engineers , bankers and other professionals ), by Universities , colleges , Training Centres and educational ins titutions and by govern ment and pr ivate hospitals /nursing homes . (iv) Immediate and effective steps shall b e take n by t he authorit ies / m anag ements /employ ers to familiarize members of the ICC s/LC s/IC s with the ir duties and the manner in which an inquiry ought to be conducted on receiving a compl aint of sexua l harassment at the work place , from the point wh en the complaint is received , till the inquiry is finally concluded and the Report submitted. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 57 of 59 (v) The authori ties /m anagement/ employers sh all regularly conduct orientation programmes, workshops, semi nars and awareness programmes to u psk ill members of the IC Cs/LC s/IC s and to e ducate wo men employee s and women ’s gro ups about the p rovisions of the Act , the Rules and relevant regula tions . (v i) The Nat ional Legal Services A uth orit y(NALSA) and the State Legal Ser vices Au thorities (SLSAs) shall dev elop modul es to conduct workshops an d organize awareness programmes to sensitiz e authori ties /m anagements/ emp loyers , employees and adolescent groups with the p rovisions of the Act , whi ch shall be included in their annual calendar. (v ii) The Nati onal Judicia l Academy and the State Judicial Aca demies shall inclu de in their annual calendars , orientation programmes , seminars and worksh ops for ca pacity b uilding of members of t he I CCs/LC s/IC s established in the High Courts and Dis trict Courts and for drafti ng Standar d Operating Pr ocedures (SOP s) to conduct an inquiry un der the A ct and Rules . (vii i) A c opy of this judgment shall be transmitted to the Secr etaries of all the Ministries , G overnment of In dia who shall ensure implementation of the directions by all the concerned Dep art m ents, Statut ory A uthorities , Institutio ns, Organisations etc . under the cont rol of the respective Ministr ies. A co py of the judgment shall also be tr ansmitte d to the C hief Sec retaries of all the St ates and Union Territories CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 58 of 59 who shal l ensure strict compl iance of the se dire ctions by all the con cerned Departments . It shall be the responsibility of the Secretaries of the Ministries , Government of India and the Chief Secre taries of e very State/Union Te rritory to ensure implem entation of the directions issued . (ix) The Regist ry of the Supreme Cou rt of India shall tra nsmit a copy of this judgment to the Director, National Judicial Academy , Member Secretary, NALSA , Chairperson, Bar Council of India and the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts . The Regist ry shall also tr ans mit a copy of this judgment to the Medica l Council of India, Council of Architecture , Institute of C hartered Accountants , Institute of Company Secretaries and the Engineering C ouncil of India for implement ing the dire ctions issued . (x) M em ber -Secretary , NA LSA is r eq uested to t rans mit a copy of this judgment to t he Member Secretar ies of all the State Leg al Servi ce s Auth orit ies . Si mil arly, the Re gistrar Generals of the State High Courts shall transmit a copy of this judgment to t he Directo rs of the State Ju dicial Academies and the Princip al District Judges /District Judges of the ir respe ctive States . (xi) The Chairp erson, Bar Co uncil of Ind ia and the Apex Bodies mentio ned in sub -para ( ix) above , shall in turn, transmit a copy of this judgme nt to all the St ate Bar Councils and t he State Level Councils , as the case ma y be. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2482 of 2014 Page 59 of 59 78. The Union of India and all States/UTs are directed to file their affidavits within eight weeks for reporting compliances. List af ter eight weeks . 79. The appeal is allowed on the above terms whi le leaving th e part ies to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. … … … … … ..… … J. [ A.S. BOPANNA ] … … … … … ..… … J. [ HIMA KOHLI ] NEW DELHI MAY 12 , 2023