Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S.C. DAS, J.
Sri Pankaj Kumar, S/o Shri Mahendra Prasad – Petitioner
Vs
Union of India - Respondents
WP(C) 408 OF 2013
Decided on : 14-02-2017
The Court held that the conduct/behaviour of the petitioner meted to the respondent No.4 amounts to sexual harassment in workplace.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Commandant of 66th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was accused of sexually harassing a newly employed direct recruit Assistant Commandant of the 66th Bn. C.R.P.F. The respondent No.4 made three complaints against the petitioner alleging harassment/sexual harassment in the workplace. The first complaint was enquired by DIG, CRPF and report submitted by him reflected the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner. The second complaint was the elaboration of the allegation made in the first complaint. Since no action was taken by the authority the respondent No.4 made third complaint to the National Commission for Women which was forwarded to the authority. All those complaints were thereafter forwarded to the Complaint Committee of the department. The Complaint Committee in its report observed that most of the allegations were proved and some of the allegations were partly proved. The Complaint Committee appears to be confused about the definition of sexual harassment and therefore observed that those conduct/behaviour could not be termed as sexual harassment with further opinion that it creates doubt about his actual intention. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the ultimate conclusion to that aspect of the finding of the Complaint Committee. The Disagreement Note was sent to the petitioner asking him to submit his representation if any, and accordingly the petitioner submitted his representation addressed to H.E. the President of India. The representation was taken into consideration and thereafter the ultimate punishment order dated 20.11.2013 was passed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the conduct/behaviour of the petitioner meted to the respondent No.4 amounts to sexual harassment in workplace. The Court observed that the petitioner harassed and she felt insecure by the uncalled for behaviour of the petitioner but it could not be termed as sexual harassment and that observation of the Complaint Committee that it was not sexual harassment was a misconception of the Complaint Committee about the definition of sexual harassment and so the discussion of evidence was not called for in the Disagreement Note. The Court further observed that the Disagreement Note was recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the communication was made by DIG assigning the reasons which have already been reproduced hereinbefore. The Court also observed that the petitioner did not challenge the standing order No.4/2004 and subsequent amendments and that the technical point raised by learned counsel, Mr. Deb is of no consequence that the amendments were not made according to the formal procedure. The Court held that the standing order clearly prescribes that in preliminary hearing the Chairperson shall supply a copy of the complaint in lieu of separate Article of charge. So while the entire complaint was supplied which contains the specific allegations in respect of sexual harassment, the legal requirement was fulfilled.
Issues: Whether the conduct/behaviour of the petitioner meted to the respondent No.4 amounts to sexual harassment in workplace.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the conduct/behaviour of the petitioner meted to the respondent No.4 amounts to sexual harassment in workplace. The Court observed that the petitioner harassed and she felt insecure by the uncalled for behaviour of the petitioner but it could not be termed as sexual harassment and that observation of the Complaint Committee that it was not sexual harassment was a misconception of the Complaint Committee about the definition of sexual harassment and so the discussion of evidence was not called for in the Disagreement Note. The Court further observed that the Disagreement Note was recorded by the Disciplinary Authority and the communication was made by DIG assigning the reasons which have already been reproduced hereinbefore. The Court also observed that the petitioner did not challenge the standing order No.4/2004 and subsequent amendments and that the technical point raised by learned counsel, Mr. Deb is of no consequence that the amendments were not made according to the formal procedure. The Court held that the standing order clearly prescribes that in preliminary hearing the Chairperson shall supply a copy of the complaint in lieu of separate Article of charge. So while the entire complaint was supplied which contains the specific allegations in respect of sexual harassment, the legal requirement was fulfilled.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition.
By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prayed for rendering substantive and conscionable justice by quashing/setting aside Disagreement Note of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 21.11.2012 (AnnexureP/6 to the writ petition) and also the order of punishment dated 20.11.2013 (AnnexureP/8 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.1 in respect of a disciplinary proceeding drawn against the petitioner on the allegation of committing sexual harassment to respondent No.4, an official subordinate of the petitioner, in the work place.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Somik Deb for the petitioner; learned counsel, Mr. A. Lodh for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and learned counsel, Mr. A. Pal for the respondent No.4.
3. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was working as Commandant of 66th Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force (for short, 66th Bn. C.R.P.F.) in the year 2009, on being promoted to the post of Commandant on 25.03.2009. Respondent No.4 was a newly employed direct recruit Assistant Commandant of the 66th Bn. C.R.P.F. and as such the petitioner was the superior authority and respondent No.4 was subordinate to the petitioner.
4. In the writ petition, the petitioner alleged that he verbally as well as in writing advised respondent No.4 to improve her performance but the respondent No.4 failed to do so rather exhibited cowardice and committed misconduct by disobeying lawful order.
5. Respondent No.4 while working as a subordinate of the petitioner in the capacity of Assistant Commandant made three complaints against the petitioner alleging harassment meted to her in different manner by the petitioner. The first complaint was made on 16.08.2009 addressed to IGP, C.R.P.F. The second complaint was made on 25.08.2009 to Director General of C.R.P.F. (Respondent No.3) and the third complaint was made on 07.09.2009 addressed to the Chairman, National Commission for Women, New Delhi. Copies of those complaints marked as AnnexureP/4 to the writ petition (collectively).
In those complaints respondent No.4 made specific allegations of harassment by the petitioner in different manner.
6. A Complaint Committee was constituted consisting of three members headed by Dr. (Miss) R. Naik, DIG (Medical) as Chairperson to enquire into the allegation of sexual harassment alleged by respondent No.4. Accordingly inquiry was conducted and the Complaint Committee submitted its report dated 23.07.2012 (AnnexureP/5 to the writ petition) (Annexure C Series to the Addl. counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3).
The report submitted by the Complaint Committee appears to be exhaustive and very lucid containing the summary of the allegations made in the complaint, scope of inquiry, summary of the inquiry and the findings of the Committee.
7. The complaints made by respondent No.4 appears to be summarized by the Complaint Committee and the summary of the complaint has been very lucidly reflected in Part I of the report which reads as follows:
“PART I
A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT
The Complaint Committee has examined the complaint in the light of the definition of Sexual Harassment as defined in the case of Visakha Vs. State of Rajasthan. Instruction laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Medha Kotwal Lele and others Vs. Union of India was also kept in mind.
From the complaints, it raises the following issues.
Under the influence of liquor Shri Pankaj Kumar, Comdt. used to call Smt. Tulsi Dungriyal, A/C alone in the name of briefing and made her to sit with him for hours talking on irrelevant topics.
Some of the specific incidents as mentioned by complainant in her complaint are as follows:
1. On 24/06/09 and 25/06/09 while she was on movement with Coys (B, C, D, E, F & F of 66 Bn) alongwith Shri Pankaj Kumar, Comdt. and other Officers in a special train from Mokamaghat he called her at odd hours and forcefully made her to sit with him while he was in drunken condition. When she told tha
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
