SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 3877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
MANJEET SINGH - Petitioner
Versus
INDRAPASTHA GAS LIMITED - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6352/2016
Decided On : 24-10-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Atyab Siddiqui and Tibah Siddiqui.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanat Kumar, with Mr. S.K. Pandey and Mr. Yogender Verma.

The court emphasized the importance of corroborating charges of sexual harassment and ensuring the right to cross-examine the complainant in inquiry proceedings.

Headnote:

Sexual Harassment - Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - 2(9) - Summary: The court quashed the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and the subsequent orders reducing the petitioner's rank, as the charges of sexual harassment against the petitioner were not corroborated by any witnesses. The court also found that the petitioner was denied the right to cross-examine the complainant, rendering the inquiry proceedings legally infirm.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and subsequent orders reducing the petitioner's rank, based on charges of sexual harassment by the petitioner's Executive Secretary. The petitioner contended that the charges were an improvisation to teach a lesson and get her desired leave application approved.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charges of sexual harassment against the petitioner were not corroborated by any witnesses, and the right to cross-examine the complainant was denied, rendering the inquiry proceedings legally infirm.

Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and subsequent orders reducing the petitioner's rank based on charges of sexual harassment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charges of sexual harassment against the petitioner were not corroborated by any witnesses, and the right to cross-examine the complainant was denied, rendering the inquiry proceedings legally infirm.

Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders, disposing of the writ petition and all pending applications.

JUDGMENT :

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1. The petitioner seeks quashing of the report dated 31.03.2016 of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the respondent; quashing of the order dated 18.05.2016 which has reduced the rank of the petitioner to one lower post, i.e., from Vice President (Level-5 Grade) to Chief General Manager (Level-4 Grade); quashing of the order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the communication of the order dated 14.07.2016.

2. The petitioner was charged and was found guilty of misconduct which, according to the respondent, would be considered sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The charge relates to a complaint by the petitioner’s Executive Secretary over an alleged incident on 26.01.2016. The initial complaint was made on 08.02.2016 and the subsequent complaint on 11.02.2016, which added many new aspects to the second complaint.

2.1 The complaint dated 08.02.2016 reads as under;

“08/02/2016

To

The Managing Director

Indraprastha Gas Ltd.

New Delhi.

Sub: Harassment of Female Employee.

Dear Sir,

I, Reena Mohanty, Employee No. 259, working as Sr. Executive Secretary attached to VP (HSE &JV). This is to bring to your kind notice that I have been facing harassment from my boss from past few weeks, due to which I am under depression and in mental agony.

On 26th January 2016 he tried flirting with me and acted inappropriately, which was not under the dignity like; he tried to hug me apart from this he also clicked my picture without my knowledge. My only request to the management is to take appropriate action on my complain and provide me safe and congenial environment to work.

Thanking you.

Reena Mohanty”.....

2.2 And the complaint dated 11.02.2016 reads as under;

“Date: 11TH Feb-2016

To

The Internal Complaint Committee (ICC)

Indraprastha Gas Ltd.

New Delhi.

Referring to the discussion we had on 10th Feb-2016 where I narrated the unpleasant incident happened with me on 26th Jan-2016 in IGL's office premises I hereby thank the ICC for patient hearing. As required by the esteemed committee, I hereby submit the facts in sequence for best judgment.

On last Republic Day I had come to office to attend flag hoisting and to receive the rewards for the chess and carom competition held In IGL recently. Though I aspire not to miss such special occasions the recent attendance was specially driven by HR's specific mall to winners to attend the function where award would be conferred.

After flag hoisting and snacks in canteen I went to my workstation to check my malls and for housekeeping of my desk. In the meantime, Mr. Manjeet Singh (Present VP-HSE & JV) came to his cabin.

I went to his cabin to ask about his recent Iran trip as a general courtesy. He asked me to sit and started telling me about his trip and ordered for tea. He said the trip was good and amoug other things he said "Iran girls are very fair, beautiful and nice". I said" "Sir it may be because of their climate".

He said though Indian girls are also beautiful but they are full of attitude. "Even tu bhi sundar hai". Though I felt very uncomfortable, I tried to take it in a positive way. Then he continued that they are (Iran girls) even very friendly. They don't mind clicking pictures with anyone.

He said, "Kya main tujhe kuchh dikhaoon? Kisi ko batayegi to nahi?" I refused to see by saying that "Sir, I don't want to intrude in your personal life and keep it with you, whatever it is". But he insisted to show by saying "arrey koi baat nahi, dekh le, tu to apni hi hai". He called me to his side of table to show me the content of his mobile. Though I avoided and told that I could see the same from my side of the table but he insisted me to come to his side.

He showed me his few snaps with an Iran Girl and I appreciated the snap though feeling uncomfortable and immediately went back to the visitor's chair where I was sitting earlier.

Then he told me that "Mainey teri photo khinchli". I go







































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top