The judgment establishes the application of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in addressing workplace sexual harassment and emphasizes the importance of conducting disciplinary proceedings in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Bharati H. Dangre, J.

“The meaning and content of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Constitution of India are of sufficient amplitude to compass all the facets of gender equality”.

Lordship Justice J.S. Verma while delivering the judgment in the Vishaka and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241 expressed above.

2. Sexual harassment results in violation of the fundamental rights of the woman to equality as enshrined in the Constitution and also her right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Government of India has enacted The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The said enactment is an extension of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in case of Vishaka and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) in the year 1997, by acknowledging sexual harassment at workplace as human right violation. The Act is reflective of the commitment of the Government to the ratification of convention on elimination of all forms of discrimination against woman and on enactment of the said statute India has become part of select group of countries who have prohibited sexual harassment at work place through a legislation.

3. The present case where the petitioner has assailed the penalty imposed on him pursuant to a complaint filed by a class IV employee working with the respondent, Goa University is the one which fall within the ambit and scope of the Act of 2013 where the allegations levelled against the petitioner were inquired into by the Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of Woman at Work Place (CPSHW) constituted by the Goa University, the respondent to this writ petition. The petitioner assail the said decision in the backdrop of violation of the principle of natural justice and on the ground of perversity.

4. A complaint came to be filed by a destitute woman working in the capacity as sweeper/scavenger for the last 20 years with the University. In the complaint she mentioned about the incidents of harassment from the petitioner who was working as Supervisor in the Estate Section. She referred to an incident which took place in the month of July and alleged that while she was cleaning the Ph.D. hostel the petitioner arrived there and under the pretext of showing her the uncleaned floor attacked her physically. His act was resisted by the complainant and she stated that she would complain to the Head of the University Work Section but he was undeterred. She wanted to lodge a complaint but since the superiors were not in office she could not do so and then she stated the reason why she could not complain, the apprehension of facing that humiliation. Another incident reported is of 13-11-2010 and a further incident dated 15-11-2010 is also mentioned. By her complaint dtd 24-11-2010 the complainant requested the Chairman of Sexual Harassment Committee, Goa University to take cognizance of the act of the petitioner since she had a feeling of insecurity and was apprehensive that the petitioner would repeat the act.

5. On the complaint being received by the CPSHW, her statement came to be recorded on 30-11-2010. In the detailed statement she referred to the incident which had occurred in the month of July at about 11:30 a.m. and she described the nature of sexual assault, and alleged that she was raped by the petitioner, but being terrified and under the shock, she made attempts to push him away but could not stop him. She offered an explanation why she did not report the incident as she would be defamed and she was not aware of the existence of any such Committee which would look into her grievances. She also state that to avoid any shame and implications to her newly married daughter, she kept quiet. Another incident which she referred to is alleged to have taken place on 4-10-2010 when she had to approach the petitioner at the Project Office with requisition for cleaning material and when she proceeded along with him to the storeroom