Procedure of Cross-Examination should adhere to principles of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court
Citation: Manjeet Singh v Indraprastha Gas (Delhi High Court, W.P.(C) 6352/2016)
Highlights
- Cross Examination must be written not verbal.
- It is important to treat the goodwill, fair name and dignity of the innocent with utmost care
Facts
The petitioner (Manjeet Singh) appealed before the High Court, seeking the quashing of the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the respondent (Indrapastha Gas Limited). The ICC had charged the petitioner of sexual harassment which had resulted in his demotion.
Issues
Whether the process of cross-examination adhered to the principles of natural justice.
Judgement
The decision of the ICC was set aside by court. It was held that since the charges of sexual harassment against the petitioner had not been corroborated by any of the other employees the conclusion drawn had to be set aside. Furthermore, the right to cross-examine the complaint as envisaged law was denied to the petitioner, and therefore the inquiry proceedings suffered from legal infirmity.
Rationale
The proceedings conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee must adhere to the principles of natural justice. The accused must be given the opportunity to cross examine the complainant and the cross-examination must be written and not verbal.
Read our insights about diversity, legal updates and industry knowledge on workplace inclusion at Ungender Insights. Visit our Blog.
Sign up to stay up-to-date with our free e-mail newsletter.
The above insights are a product of our learning from our advisory work at Ungender. Our Team specialises in advising workplaces on gender centric laws.
or email us at contact@ungender.in
