The judgment emphasizes the importance of addressing sexual harassment at workplaces, the need for a sensitive and effective redressal system, and the irrelevance of the appellant's efficiency or disciplinary proceedings in the inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint.

JUDGMENT :

Asha Menon, J.

[Via Video Conferencing]

CM APPLN. No.285602020 (Exemption from filing certified copies/originals of the annexures/orders)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.

2. The application is disposed of.

LPA 527/2019, CM APPLN. Nos.36839/2019 (of the appellant for stay of the impugned order dated 9th July, 2019), 28559/2020 (of the appellant for directions and/or appropriate orders staying the deposit of costs)

3. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 9th July, 2019 dismissing her writ petition and also imposing exemplary costs of Rs.50,000/- upon her while granting liberty to the respondent No.2 to initiate appropriate action against her for filing a false complaint against the respondent No.3/ O.P.Verma.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Kamna Vohra, Mr.Anil Dabas, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. Yakesh Anand, the learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 and have carefully perused the record. At the outset, we may note that the inquiry into the complaint of sexual harassment filed by the appellant against the respondent No.3/O.P.Verma was conducted before the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the ‘Act’, for short) and was under the “Vishaka Guidelines” issued by the Supreme Court in Vishaka and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 241.

5. The petitioner was working, at the relevant time, as an Assistant Director (Fin.) with the ESI Hospital at Manesar, Gurgaon. The respondent No.3/O.P.Verma at that time was posted as Deputy Director in the same hospital. The appellant had complained that he was repeatedly subjecting her to sexual harassment by using inappropriate language with sexual overtones. On 7th July, 2011, according to the appellant, she was distributing housekeeping material among the nursing staff at the ESI Hospital when the respondent No.3/O.P.Verma told her to accompany him to the male toilet using words that were indicative of sexual advances. She felt deeply humiliated. On a previous occasion, the respondent No.3/O.P.Verma had commented on her dress saying if another button of her shirt were to open what would be the result that would follow. On yet another occasion, when the appellant commented to other Staff that Saturdays should be a half day as there was less work and during the rest of the time they were only playing hide and seek, the respondent No.3/O.P.Verma remarked that neither had he caught the appellant nor had the appellant caught him. Such incidents had caused great anguish to the appellant.

6. It was in this background that on the 7th July, 2011, the appellant went to Ms. Rashmi Kapoor (OS) and reported the incident of 7th July, 2011 to her and broke down. On her encouragement, both of them went to the Medical Superintendent of the ESI Hospital, who sympathized with her and asked her to make a written complaint which she did on 8th July, 2011. A Complaints Committee (now known as ‘Internal Complaints Committee’ under the Act) was duly constituted. The Complaints Committee examined all witnesses and submitted a report on 20th January, 2012 that the incident of 7th July, 2011 had actually happened even though the content of the communication could not be established. It also concluded that the other incidents could not be established in the absence of substantive evidence as there were no direct witnesses. Therefore, the Complaints Committee granted benefit of doubt to the respondent No.3/O.P.Verma. The Complaints Committee further recommended that both the officers, i.e. the complainant as well as respondent No.3/O.P.Verma be re-located with immediate effect to protect and maintain the healthy and congenial working environment at the ESI Hospital, Manesar, Gurgaon.

7. According to the appellant, this decision was not communicated to her and it was only on 3rd J