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

2021 Supreme(Tri) 202

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
Akil Kureshi, CJ.
Vinay Kumar Rai - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 596/2019
Decided On : 17-09-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate, Ms. S. Chisim, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. Biswanath Majumder, CGC, for the Respondent

The expansive definition of sexual harassment under the Act includes various unwelcome behaviors, and procedural delays do not invalidate complaints or inquiries.

Headnote:(A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Definition of sexual harassment - Section 2(n) - Inquiry proceedings and committee composition - Complaint against an officer regarding inappropriate conduct, which included unwelcome actions and intimidation. (Paras 7, 10, 16)

(B) Complaints and inquiries under the Act - Timeliness of complaint under Section 9 - The inquiry must be completed within 90 days as per Section 11(4) but this does not invalidate proceedings if not completed. (Paras 11, 13)

(C) Authority and Procedure - Need for departmental clearance for charge-sheets under service rules does not apply to SLCC inquiries. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the proceedings and consequential orders passed thereon pertaining to a complaint of sexual harassment made against him by the respondent No.16. Since a final decision is yet to be taken by the department in connection with such a complaint, I would not make any observations with respect to the factual aspects. Nonetheless, a brief reference to some of the facts would be inevitable.

2. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Deputy Inspector General in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF, for short). The respondent No.16 (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) was serving as General Duty Medical Officer at the Group Centre of CRPF where the petitioner was posted. She lodged a complaint before the Director General of CRPF on 26.07.2018. In this complaint she had stated as under:

“To

The DG

CRPF, BLOCK NO1

CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD

NEW DELHI-110003

SUB: Complaint.

Dear sir/madam,

With due respect and humble submission I would like to state that I Dr. NISHA TIWARI, GDMO IRLA NO- 505488 of GC CRPF AGARTALA TRIPURA joined my service as GDMO on Dated 29 November 2017.

I would like to draw your kind attention on the above subject matter.

1. As above I joined GC crpf Agartala and at that time Shri Vinay Kumar Rai, took the charge of DIG, Range Agartala as well as he also had additional charge of Group Centre, CRPF Agartala. Being a DIG of GC and as a protocol I went to call on him in his office at morning 9.30 hrs and after that I went to joined my duty but at evening 17.00 hrs without any reason he ordered a called from the control room and asked me to meet him at 17.30 hrs in his offices chamber. For which I had to met him again in his office room there he had forcefully taken my personal mobile number which I was not willing to gave him.

2. Sh Vinay Kumar Rai, DIG started to send me messages and I replied him in a formal way, but after some messages he sent me some informal messages. I stopped replying him and blocked his number.

3. The above officer started calling me in my landline number and asked irrelevant matter. I strictly replied him to talked to my senior male counterpart doctor Dr. Babul Roy posted in GC Agartala. I tried to avoid his irrelevant calls but still he used to call me forcefully in my landline number in odd hrs.

4. Not only Sh. Vinay Kumar Rai but also his wife Smt. Shalini Rai always billingsgate and threaten me.

5. My husband DR D S Mohan, (CMO-OG) is recently posted in 71 BN, Khumlung, Agartala because of spouse posting special case and he is also allotted a quarter in GC Agartala. But as 71 bn is under DIG Range Agartala Sh Vinay Kumar Rai. Being a DIG Range, Sh Vinay Kumar Rai strictly told Commandant 71 Bn not to give him out living permission and told him to make him stay in the unit campus only.

As above all this matter made me so much worried and mentally disturbed. I could not send this message to you but he should get a lesson so that he will not do such kind of behaviour with his Juniors wife. I request you madam to kindly keep this letter as confidential.

Yours sincerely

NISHA TIWARI, GDMO

GC AGARTALA.”

3. On 20.08.2018 the DIG issued an order constituting a Sector Level Complaints Committee (SLCC, for short) in terms of the provisions contained in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act of 2013). This committee consisted of one lady IPS Officer, as a Chairperson, one more lady officer also from the department, one lady member representing the NGO and a Legal Officer of the department.

4. The SLCC carried out the inquiry into the allegations of the complainant and eventually submitted a report on 07.02.2019. The contents of the report read as under:

“Please refer Directorate Order No.C.IV-03/2018-Vig dated 20/08/2019 and amendment issued vide order of even no. dtd 6/2/2019 2. Vide above mentioned order, a SLCC was constituted by the Directorate to look into th

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