MISCONDUCT RELATING TO THREATENING, ABUSE OR ASSAULT BY A SUPERIOR OR CO-

WORKER

ABSTRACT
In India and around the world, workplace bullying is a serious and persistent problem.
Bullying in the workplace impacts millions of employees, contributing to lost jobs,
psychological and physical distress, and accidents. The Constitutional mandate to the State
to uphold the right of the person to live with human dignity reiterated by this country's
Supreme Court is an unconditional promise owed to every citizen by the government. 1 This
reverberation has earned the oppressed communities in our community a bonhomie of
benevolent rights. The Supreme Court set out certain rules for the safety of female workers
from sexual harassment in Visakha v. State of Rajasthan 2. But it is not just women who are
exposed to sexual abuse. All jobs, regardless of their gender, are subjected to one or another
type of workplace harassment. Unfortunately, although appropriate and required attention
was drawn to the issue of sexual assault, non-gender related harassment and bullying, for the
most part, continued to be overlooked. The humiliation inflicted on workers at the workplace,
which is often informally referred to as "bullying at the workplace," has significant
consequences for employees' mental and physical health and affects their job performance.
Much of the abuse of workers at work is committed against their subordinates or juniors by
superior officers or senior colleagues. Any authority is granted to a superior officer and
controlling officer to supervise the work of all employees and to see that all employees carry
out the work as per the employer's wishes. Workplace bullying and harassment can have a
detrimental impact on the wellbeing, trust, morality and success of those workers exposed to
it. It is true that the management of an office requires some superior supervision of the
workers, but it does not entail humiliation and intimidation in the workplace.

INTRODUCTION
Although verbal and psychological are the most basic types of harassment, there are also
more extreme forms, such as physical and sexual harassment. All forms of abuse in the
workplace are unlawful and not only impact the efficiency, comfort, and protection of an
employee at work, but also put the company in legal danger. While many victims of
workplace harassment feel that harassment will be noticed and reported to those in charge,

1
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
2
AIR 1997 SC 3011 .
harassment also leaves them in an awkward and confusing situation. As the author of a paper
prepared for the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission correctly said,
"When they join the workforce, workers usually have optimistic aspirations. Employees
deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their level of experience. While
at work, workers often want to feel appreciated and productive. Job is an expression of
belonging for many people and a reflection of one's value to society. Self-esteem is also
correlated with work satisfaction and career growth'.3
The employer is not liable for this reasonable expectation of the employees and the State has
not taken any measures to protect the honour and reputation of the employees at the
workplace, while the Apex Court of that country has in a number of judgments recalled its
responsibility to protect such rights. The dignity of the workers as individuals is not being
adequately taken care of either in government sectors or in private and corporate sectors. The
British legacy of bureaucratization, which is almost systematized in our country, has created
a hierarchy of employees who work closely together to carry out administration and also
crept into this culture of subordination of lower-level employees to higher-level employees in
the private sector. A different form of harassment that is not based on hierarchical divisions
of jobs, but due to other factors such as regional feelings, ability biases, educational
background and English language skills, and so on, can all be found in the Indian corporate
sector.4 Thus, bullying or humiliation and workplace abuse are a threat that prevails in one
form or the other in every office. Office subordinates in government departments (also
referred to as class IV staff) and contingent and contract staff in government and semi-
governmental organisations, whose continuity of jobs is often at the discretion of the higher
authorities, are the most vulnerable to this blight.5
When the actions of the superior officer are aimed against a certain section of employees
because of his biases, it causes more tension and great emotional distress to the sufferers.
There is not always a solely official or personal arrangement between the employer and the
worker or between the superior and the subordinate. Assigning the office work to the
employees on the basis of their skills, reviewing their work performance either for any
benefit or in a routine manner, correcting their mistakes and informally admonishing the
employees in the event that unintended wrongs have been done, etc. are largely left to the
3
Michael Johnson, Apples and Oranges in Child Custody Disputes: Intimate Terrorism vs. Situational Couple
Violence, 2 Journal of Child Custody 43 (2005).
4
Ryan, M. (2016). Besting the Workplace Bully. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 55(4), 267-269.
5
Dr. Gail H. Forsythe, Using Mediation to Resolve Human Rights Issues In the Workplace, prepared for
Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, p.5, for full text of the paper visit
www.albartahumarights.ab.ca. Visited on 03 Jan, 2020.
superior's desertion, and subjectivity and prejudices are bound to play a role in such matters. 6
A good officer who is well educated in administration uses a soft strategy to achieve the
desired outcome and an untrained or biased approach
The boss makes a huge mess of the situation that leads to emotional disturbances for many
office workers. There are several causes for embarrassment, but the one often predicted is the
employee's inefficiency in doing the job or insubordination or lack of a culture of work such
as promptness, swiftness, sharpness and grasping. The embarrassment of the superior
officers' employees is also focused on the officer's individual expectations of his
performance, the perceptions typically affected by stray incidents or personal bias that can be
a moral or immoral or even amoral bias that is conscious or unconscious. Once started, the
intimidation persists until the worker surrenders or until some wisdom is dawned on the
superior officer about his assumptions. Harassment does not always need to be from the
senior officer's side, but it can be by all of the subordinates and also by them, regardless of
the picture, who have the advantageous place in the office. Insubordination is not accepted by
the managers of the offices at the higher end of the hierarchy and the service rules framed by
the government in our country include ambiguous words such as "conduct un becoming of a
public servant" and "subordination to the higher authority," and these uncertain circumstances
hold workers under a kind of apprehension. 7 The humiliation, the shame and trauma of facing
the enquiry make the workers more unsafe in their minds, despite the presence of the
guidelines for free and equal departmental enquiries, and so they work all the time in a more
stressful and charged atmosphere. The stress caused by employees' psychological status is
more detrimental to employees' physical and emotional well-being than the stress caused by
their office job. For this reason, the workers tolerate the excesses and constant threats of their
bad tempered supervisors. The problem for this write-up is the conduct of the superior or
governing officer with his subordinates, and the behavior of the senior employee with his
junior counterpart, for that matter.

WHAT CONSTITUTES ABUSE IN THE WORKPLACE?

Workplace abuse may or may not have physical proof. When discussing the subject, knowing
what is happening to you will help. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC), derogatory jokes, slurs, epithets or name-calling, physical attacks or

6
Evan Stark, Coercive Control(2007).
7
OrlyRachmilovitz, Bringing Down the Bedroom Walls: Emphasizing Substance over Form in Personalized
Abuse, 14 William & Mary Journal of Women & Law 495 (2007).
intimidation, bullying, criticism or mockery, insults or put-downs, offensive items or
photographs, and job performance interference can be included in misconduct.
In a number of conditions, abuse often happens, such as these:
 The harasser may be the boss of the victim, a supervisor in another country, an
employer's agent, a co-worker or a non-employee.
 The victim may not have to be the person harassed, but anyone affected by the
offensive actions may be affected.
 Unlawful harassment can occur without the victim being injured or discharged
economically.8

First and foremost, understanding when you are being insulted at work is important. With a
lot of grey areas, sexual harassment is a severe concern. It is your duty to report it if you
encounter a crime or experience abuse in the workplace. Know that you are covered by
workplace discrimination laws if you're concerned about losing your job in retaliation.
The interpersonal relationship between the employer and the worker and the workers inter se
is not expressly prescribed by any rules. Any set of rules does not regulate the conduct and
relationship between them. While in some private sector industries there are some
prescriptions on this aspect in which certain expectations are established by supervisors in
dealing with the subordinate staff, it can be safely assumed by and wide that there are no
clear rules to govern the conduct of superior officers with their subordinate staff.9

On the contrary, there are numerous un-avowed laws concerning subordinates' conduct with
their superior officers. Vice versa, the actions of a superior officer against subordinate
workers may be formulated by himself (the superior) at his whims and fancies, and this
independence makes the officer more powerful with the instrument of administrative control
in his possession. This power becomes absolute without rules and guidelines and attains all
the attributes of absolute power traditionally tagged to it. While the country's Apex Court set
guidelines to prevent sexual abuse of women at workplaces in Visakha4, which provided a
basis for legislation on that aspect, no such exercise is carried out with regard to the right of
employees to work in the workplace with dignity and honour. Enabling the workplace

8
Victor Tadros, The Distinctiveness of Domestic Abuse: A Freedom Based Account, 65 Louisiana Law Review
989, 999 (2005)
9
Dmitry Khodyakov, Trust as a Process: A Three Dimensional Approach, 41 Sociology 116 (2007)
atmosphere to continue intimidation and humiliation is a breach of workers' human rights and
it has a significant impact on the productivity of the working system.

TYPES OF WORKPLACE HARASSMENT

A. Verbal molestation
An ongoing war of destruction that threatens your wellbeing and career may be verbal abuse.
It consists of demeaning comments, unfair criticism and offensive gestures. Insults, slurs,
unwanted "jokes" and hurtful remarks may be involved.
It can be difficult to identify verbal abuse and is often a grey area, since it is a non-physical
type of aggression. Often, shouting, swearing, or making offensive comments or jokes about
a co-worker is seen as a case of conflict of personality and not as harassment, even though
such actions can have a negative psychological effect on the victim and result in results such
as depression, high blood.10
B. Psychological Harassment
Psychological harassment is similar to verbal harassment, but it is more subtle and consists of
exclusionary techniques, such as information withholding. Chancey said these acts are
designed to psychologically break the victim down, chip away and weaken their self-esteem.
"Behaviors such as taking credit for someone's achievement, making impossible demands,
imposing unreasonable deadlines on a particular employee, constantly requiring an employee
to perform demeaning tasks that are outside of their job scope, or persistently opposing
everything someone says may not seem like harassment, but this can be a form of deliberate
psychological bullying.11

C. Digital Harassment (cyberbullying)

It can be just as harmful as in-person bullying, even though digital harassment is online. It is
the newest type of harassment and happens through many channels.
Digital harassment includes posting threats or demeaning comments on social media, creating
a fake persona to bully someone online, creating a webpage about the victim to mock and

10
Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men
Domestic Violence, 12 (2002).
11
Deborah Tuerkheimer, Recognizing and Remedying the Harm of Battering, 94 Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology 959 (2004).
belittle them, and making false allegations online," said Sheri Mooney, Mind Squad HR CEO
and president.12
Social media has become pervasive in the workplaceand it is now possible for someone to
digitally threaten others in the name of freedom of expression or being awake.
People appear to be braver behind a computer, which, sadly, means being meaner," Garvin
said. "The positive online abuse news: It's documentable and easy to prove. With reporting
and proving it, this helps so much.Garvin suggested taking screenshots, saving emails on
your personal computer and maintaining a file of anything that makes you uncomfortable in
order to track the situation.13

D. Harassment by physical means

Sexual harassment can vary in degrees in the workplace. Mooney said these may include
simple unwelcome gestures such as touching the dress, hair, face, or skin of an employee, or
more serious gestures such as physical attack, threats of abuse, and personal property harm.
It can be difficult to recognize because of the difference in degrees of physical harassment.
Chancey said that if there is no physical damage done, any physical harassment could be
downplayed as a joke.If an employee routinely shoves, blocks and kicks a co-worker, but the
victim has never been hurt from the shoves and kicks, this might not be seen as harassment,
especially if it is done by a supervisor or an otherwise high-performing worker.14
It can still be called physical abuse, even though there is no serious physical damage. If a
situation becomes aggressive, workers should immediately call 911 and avoid interfering in
the situation.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
The reactions of employees to the attitude of superior officers can range from passive to
aggressive, the extremes of which are generally unhealthy, unproductive and, in extreme
cases, violent. If such situations are ignored or unresolved, the outcome can be complete
disruption at workplace emotional distress, and even the total collapse of the administrative
set up at least for a brief period. The work place harassment to the employees even resulted in
suicides by the employees and the immediate stimulus for the study of this aspect is the

12
Michelle Madden Dempsey, What Counts as Domestic Violence, 13 William And Mary Journal of Women
And The Law 301 (2006).
13
Audrey Mullender, Tackling Domestic Violence: Providing Support For Children Who Have Witnessed
Domestic Violence (2005).
14
Infra, note 7.
judgment of the High court of Uttarakhand in Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal and
others (herein after referred to as Praveen Pradhan) 15 dealing with the case of suicide of an
engineer allegedly committed due to harassment by his superior and colleagues, in which
Servesh Kumar Gupta, J., observed that “under the pretext of administrative control and
discipline, a superior officer cannot be left to enjoy an extreme liberty to make the intense
humiliation and scolding inhumanly. He may be free to take any administrative disciplinary
action ,as per the rules ,but cannot be permitted to enjoy the liberty, full of ego, to humiliate a
subordinate in a horrified manner. In this case the court while disposing a petition under
section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 refused to quash the proceedings against
a superior officer who is accused of abetment of commission of suicide by his subordinate
officer who was an engineer working under him. The deceased left a suicide note against the
accused in this case. It appears that this order of the court is not compatible with a binding
precedent rendered by the Supreme court in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat 16 and
another(hereinafter referred to as Madan) in which it was observed that “if the prosecutions
are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to
work” and quashed the proceedings against a superior officer against whom accusation was
that he instigated the suicide committed by the deceased who was his office driver. The
Judgment of Supreme Court in Netai Dutta v. State of West Bengal 17 (hereinafter referred to
as Netai) is also another binding precedent which was not considered by the High Court of
Uttarakhand. The High court of Uttarakhand distinguished Madan and Praveen Pradhan on
facts. Still a close reading of two cases show that though the judgments in both the cases are
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the respective cases they are divergent
conclusions on the issue of humility at work place. Though the Supreme Court in Madan did
not lay down any rule that the humiliation and bullying at work place can be tolerated there is
an indication that the courts shall be slow in holding that such humiliations constitute
instigation or abetment to commit suicide. The Supreme Court referred to its own decision
quashing the criminal proceedings in Netai in which the accusation against the accused who
are the employees of M/s. M.L. Dalmia & company was that they caused humiliation to the
another employee at work place and it drove him to commit suicide after leaving a suicide
note. It is to be noted that despite the binding precedent of the Supreme court the high courts
have taken divergent views as to whether the humiliation at work place which drives the

15
Order dated 5th January,2012 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 420(MANU/U C/0030/2012).
16
2010(2) ALD (Cri) 861: (2010) 8 SCC 628.
17
2005(2) ALT (Cri) 125: (2005) 2 SCC 659.
employees to commit the suicide amounts to abetment to commit the suicide punishable
under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code,1860( I. P C.) Netai and Madan are weak
precedents as far as the humiliation and harassment of the employees at the work place is
concerned since in both the cases no importance is given whether the conduct humiliating the
employees at work place affects any of the rights of the employees and what could be the
liability of the employer in such cases. The concern of the Court in both these cases is only to
find whether the conduct of the accused in the respective cases amounts to abetment to
commit suicide within the meaning of the word given to it in the I. P. C. But these precedents
are being widely cited in all the cases to quash the criminal proceedings against those who are
accused of abetment to commit suicide of the employees by their conduct at work places.
Though the judgments in Netai and Madan are correct in the factual scenario of those cases
an examination of the working of these decisions as precedents as reflected in the judgments
of the High Court’s shows that these judgments created an impression that no much
importance can be given to the allegations of harassment of employees by the superior
officers and that the discipline and administration of the office overweigh than the most
important right to live with human dignity. A brief review of judgments of different High
Courts in the cases of allegations of the harassment of the employees at work place throws
light upon the situation prevailing in government as well as the corporate offices in our
country. The study for the purpose of this paper is not whether the alleged acts in those cases
amount to abetment in technical sense of the term as used in I.P.C. but to impress up on the
readers that the office environment in our bureaucratic set up is not conducive for the
physical and mental health of the employees.

Before the judgment in Netai Maithili Saran, J., of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Vijayakumar Dighe and another v. Madhya Pradesh State 18, the case of a bank employee
who allegedly committed suicide due to occupational stress was considered. The allegation
against the accused was that he felt tension and committed suicide because they pressured the
deceased to work in the cash advancement branch. The court refused to quash the charge
sheet charges claiming that the defendant committed the suicide offense. In the case of Dr.
Subhash Manchand v. State of Uttara Pradesh 19, even after the judgment in Netai a
Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, in the case of Dr. Subhash Manchand v.
State of Uttara Pradesh20, the case of a university staff member who committed suicide on
18
2000(1) M P L J52.
19
2006(9) A D J208.
20
2007 Crl.L.J 4568.
the grounds of abuse of some staff under the orders of the Vice Chancellor, and Amitava Lala
and Shiv Shanker, JJ, declined to quash the proceedings separating the case. Ravindra Bhat,
J., of the Delhi High Court, also declined to quash the criminal proceedings against the
employers of the deceased who allegedly committed suicide because of the abuse and
physical humiliation at the office(s) to which he was subjected, while deciding Sanjay
Singhal v. State21. However, in his judgment of 09-09-2005 (shortly after Netai), Jayant
Patel, J., of the High Court of Gujarat, in A.K. The judgment in Netai was readily applied by
Chaudhary and two others v. The State of Gujarat and two others to quash the FIR against the
officers of the deceased (belonging to Life Insurance Corporation) registered by the police
based on a suicide note left by the employee who committed suicide with his wife and
children. The court defined ties between human beings as relationships between family
members (first category) and office relationships (second category) and noted that
However, where the charges of abetment of suicide committed by the deceased falling under
the second category are concerned, strict interpretation is otherwise necessary, the discipline
of any agency or entity or department may be counterproductive, resulting in discipline being
generated against the national interest for which the expectation may be striking.
The court quashed the complaint (FIR) against the accused without throwing any light on the
relationship between the rule of law and discipline, giving paramount importance to the
discipline at the workplaces, but at the same time held that "there is a remedial measure
provided under civil law to compensate the dependent members of the deceased for the loss
of life of the deceased. In the present case, the High Court of Gujarat disagreed with the
above-mentioned Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment in Vijayakumar. Dhirendra Mishra,
J., of the High Court of Chhattisgarh, quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused in
Narendra Kumar Mishra v. Smt. Prameela Joshi and others 22 after finding that the death of
the deceased is not due to the suicide attempt but many days after the attempt and that the
alleged actions do not amount to motivation. The court found in this case that the grievances
of the deceased were real. The court relied on the Netai judgment and correctly quashed the
proceedings in the light of the facts of the present case. In Deepak
PrabhakararaoChondekar v. State of Maharashtra23 A Bombay's High Court, depending on
the judgments in Netai and Madan, quashed the proceedings against the deceased's junior
office colleagues who faced the charge of facilitating their senior officer's suicide.

21
2006 Cri.L.J 726.
22
2008 ( 1 ) CGLJ 459.
23
2011(113) Bom.LR 2257.
The two judgments referred to above by the Supreme Court and the judgments rendered by
the High Courts illustrate the fact that there are instances where some workers have been
forced to commit suicide due to workplace harassment or workplace distress. The High
Courts of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench), Allahabad, Uttarakhand and Delhi declined to
quash the proceedings, while the Nagpur Bench (High Courts of Gujarat, Chhattisgarh,
Bombay) quashed the proceedings based on the Netai and Madan judgments. But none of the
above-mentioned courts have taken seriously the question of the abuse of workers at the
workplace and its debilitating impact on their wellbeing to be taken into account when
determining the cases before them and have followed an approach that is too technical to
determine whether the accused's actions in the agreed sense of the word amount to
encouragement. It is in Praveen Pradhan Servesh that Kumar Gupta, J., took note of the fact
that workers should not be subjected to abuse and humiliation in the name of administration
and discipline. In the latter background, employee suicide cases should not be swept aside as
actions made by cynical and weak-minded individuals or as plain ignorable office blues.
Some of the instances show just the tip of the iceberg and the embarrassment of the workers
at the workplace can not be ruled out by any means. The details of these cases suggest that a
statutory structure is required to deal with a situation in which the superior or controlling
officer harasses the employee and to govern the actions of the superior officer in dealing with
the subordinates. While determining Netai or Madan, the Supreme Court might have taken
the opportunity to lay down guidelines on the right of workers to work with dignity and
respect in the offices as done in Visakha on the issue of sexual abuse of women at work.
It cannot be overlooked that the abuse and intimidation of workers in the workplace is
intrinsically related to our constitution's right to live with human dignity. Our Constitution
imposes on the State a duty to uphold the integrity of the citizen in all ways, including the
workplace. The commitment in the preamble of our constitution is to protect the "Fraternity
that guarantees the dignity of the individual," which includes the dignity of the workplace
employees. Article 42 of the Constitution orders the State to provide for a "provision to
ensure fair and humane working conditions" (at work places). Article 43 of the Constitution
orders the State to maintain working standards that ensure a fair standard of living and the
complete enjoyment of opportunities for recreation and social and cultural activities by
effective legislation or in some other way. The State is therefore obliged to allow workers to
work in genuine and human working conditions without any embarrassment or abuse in
which their right to honour and dignity is not infringed. In Maneka Gandhi19, Article 21 of
the Constitution was generally interpreted and this was followed in a number of cases. The
Supreme Court observed in Francis Coralie Mullin v. Governor, Union Territory of
Delhi24that'Therefore, any limb or faculty by which life is enjoyed is covered by Article 21
and a fortiorari, which would include the faculty of thought and feeling.' Now the deprivation
inhibited by Article 21 may be absolute or partial, and neither the limbs nor the faculty may
be completely destroyed or partially impaired. Moreover it is any kind of deprivation that is
hit by Article 21, whether such deprivation be permanent or temporary and, furthermore,
deprivation is not an act which is complete once and for all: it is a continuing act and so long
as it continues, it must be in compliance with procedure defined by statute. It is therefore
clear that any act which, permanently or even temporarily, harms or injures or interferes with
the use of any person's limb or faculty will be subject to the inhibition of Article 21.

CONCLUSION
Mental agony if it is triggered by occupational abuse amounts to both a breach of Article 21
of the Indian Constitution and a violation of human rights. In the current case, there is no
solution or process for redressing complaints for workers who experience abuse and lack of
dignity in the workplace. At work, he will suffer or perish. The abuse does not, as is evident
in the rulings of the cases cited above, legally amount to the abetment to commit suicide in all
cases, but the blameworthiness in the actions of the employer or superior officer cannot be
left unchecked. In the benefit of both workers and the company, a law containing the
procedure for improving and safeguarding the right of the employee to dignity at work must
be conceived.
Such legislation could be stiffly opposed by those who claim that such legislation generates
more scorn for honest officers who insist on perfection in office work and would be at risk in
discipline at work. A clear demarcation is formed between embarrassment and disciplinary
action. A correct meaning of terms such as workplace abuse, workplace humiliation,
workplace coercion distinguishes between real disciplinary action and harassment.
Harassment in the name of discipline and administration cannot be justified at any stage of
imagination. The penalty is completely different from abuse and embarrassment. The right of
the worker to be treated with respect and dignity is acknowledged in all civilized societies.
Attempts to introduce similar legislation with the title Right to Dignity Bill in British
Parliament failed more than once and the fight for such a law is on in Britain. Ireland
however enacted Employment Equality Acts, 1998 and 2004 under which Equality Tribunals
and an appellate tribunal Equality Authority were established. The Act provides a framework
24
1981 Cri.L.J306.
for obtaining and resolving workers complaints about discrimination and embarrassment in
the workplace.