harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually
determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a
behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical
contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment.
Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and
is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily
amount to sexual harassment.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 31.10.2017
W.P.(C) 8149/2010
SHANTA KUMAR V COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND
INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH (CSIR) & ORS .
CORAM
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, challenging
the proceedings conducted by the Complaint Committee constituted in
terms of the Office Memorandum (hereinafter „the OM‟) dated 29.08.2006,
to examine the charges of sexual harassment levelled by the petitioner
against respondent no.3. The Complaint Committee had exonerated
respondent no.3 of all the charges of sexual harassment levelled against
him and its report was same accepted by the Disciplinary Authority.
Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 12.10.2009
(hereinafter „the impugned order‟) exonerating respondent no.3 from the
charges of sexual harassment. The petitioner has also impugned the
aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.
2. The petitioner had made a complaint regarding incident that
occurred on 29.04.2005. The petitioner had alleged that while she was
working at the laboratory, respondent no.3 had entered the laboratory and
stopped the machine and snatched the samples from the petitioner and had
thrown the materials. He had, thereafter, pushed the petitioner out of the
laboratory and had locked the laboratory. The petitioner also alleged that
he was shouting and using derogatory language against one Dr Sood and
Scheduled Castes Community (as she was married to a person belonging to
the SC category). However, it appears that the said complaint was not
forwarded to the concerned authorities at the relevant time.
3. Subsequently, the petitioner was requested to complete the
formalities relating to certain equipment of HEM division before leaving
the same as the said division had been dissolved. In this connection, the
petitioner made a noting alleging that respondent no.3 had been harsh in
his behaviour and had threatened her not to enter the laboratory, while
abusing Dr Jain, Dr Sood as well as the petitioner. She also stated that this
was reported by her.
4. The said complaint was forwarded by Dr P. K. Jain under cover of
his note dated 03.03.2006 “for further investigation of sexual harassment”
of the petitioner by respondent no.3, who was at the material time holding
the designation of HoD (FPD).
5. Since the expression „sexual harassment‟ had not been used by the
petitioner in her noting, the concerned officer of Central Road Research
Institute (hereinafter „the CRRI‟) forwarded Dr P. K. Jain‟s note to the
petitioner inquiring whether she desired to pursue the aforesaid complaint.
By a further memo dated 14.08.2006, the concerned officer also requested
the petitioner to submit a clarification whether the complaint involved
harassment of a sexual nature. In response thereto, the petitioner sent a
letter dated 18.08.2006 now alleging that she had been subjected to “all
kinds of harassment including sexual harassment” by respondent no.3.
She further requested that all complaints made against respondent no.3 be
perused in totality.
6. In view of the above, the Director, CRRI constituted a Complaint
Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr Usha Sharma, Emeritus
Scientist, Indian Agricultural Research Institute. The Complaint
Committee constituted of five persons including one member from a nongovernment
organization. The petitioner objected to inclusion of one of
the members (Shri G. K. Vij) who was replaced by Dr S. Gangopadhyay.
One of the members, Dr Saroj Gupta, was appointed as a convenor of the
Complaint Committee.
7. The Committee examined the complaint made by the petitioner,
inter alia, concluding that the complaint was not of any sexual harassment
but was a case of altercation in the background of the uncongenial
environment prevailing in the division. The Complaint Committee also
found that respondent no.3 had indulged in using un-parliamentary
language with his colleagues and juniors which was deplorable. The
Complaint Committee submitted its report. The relevant extract indicating
the Committee‟s conclusion is set out below:-
“a. Mrs Shanta Kumar faced difficulties in carrying
out her work in F.P. Division. She felt
aggrieved as
i) an incident of Dr Bose holding her arm
occurred on 29.04.2005.
ii) She was placed in the common pool and
transferred.
iii) she was prevented from marking her
attendance in the P. F. Division.
iv) She was not allowed to transfer the
equipments in her name after her transfer.
b. Dr. P. K. Jain, did not provide evidence to
substantiate the „sexual harassment‟ aspect of
the incidence as mentioned by him in the
complaint forwarded by him on 03.03.2006.
c. The complaint is associated with a number of
administrative and managerial issues and interpersonal
conflicts.
d. The complaint is not a sexual harassment case
but it was case of altercation in the background
of the uncongenial environment prevailing in the
Division.
e. Dr Sunil Bose appears to be a short tempered
persons and occasionally indulged in using upparliamentary
language with colleagues and
juniors, which is deplorable.”
8. Mr Rakesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the
proceedings before the Complaint Committee as well as the impugned
order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, essentially, on three grounds.
First, he submitted that the Complaint Committee was not constituted in
accordance with the instructions of Government of India issued by the
DoPT vide OM No.11013/10/97 Estt.(A) dated 13.07.1999 inasmuch as
most of the members of the Complaint Committee were subordinate to
respondent no.3. Second, he submitted that an ad hoc Disciplinary
Authority had been appointed even though a regular Disciplinary Authority
was present and this was done only to exonerate respondent no.3 of the
charges made against him. And third, that the report of the Complaint
Committee and the impugned order passed suffered from lack of
application of mind.
9. It was contended that a plain reading of the report of the Complaint
Committee clearly established that the petitioner had suffered sexual
harassment at the hand of respondent no.3. The Complaint Committee had
found that the allegations made by the petitioner with regard to incident on
29.04.2005 were correct and yet no action had been taken against
respondent no.3. The petitioner‟s allegation that respondent no.3 had held
her hand and pushed her out of the laboratory was substantiated, yet the
Complaint Committee had exonerated respondent no.3 of the said charges.
The learned counsel submitted that any unwelcome physical contact would
amount to sexual harassment and the Complaint Committee had erred in
not appreciating the same.
10. Mr Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that the
findings of the Complaint Committee regarding incident of 29.04.2005
were incorrect and no such incident had occurred. He further submitted
that the real genesis of the controversy was the rivalry between respondent
no.3 and one Dr P. K. Jain; the complaint made by the petitioner was used
as a device by Dr P. K. Jain for ulterior purposes. He further submitted
that respondent no.3 had retired from services several years ago and yet
was being unjustifiably hounded by the petitioner.
11. Mr Praveen, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 also
countered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. He submitted
that the ad hoc Disciplinary Authority had been constituted since Dr.
Vikram Kumar, Director, CRRI had demitted office on 02.09.2008 and Dr.
Gangopadhyay had taken over the charge as an Acting Director, CRRI but
was not discharging the function as a Disciplinary Authority.
Consequently, respondent no.1 was requested for nominating an ad hoc
Disciplinary Authority and, accordingly, by an order dated 10.11.2008, the
President, CSIR nominated Dr Girish Sahni, Director, IMT as the ad hoc
Disciplinary Authority. He submitted that the said decision could not be
faulted.
12. The first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether the report of
the Complaint Committee and the impugned order are ex facie without
application of mind as contended on behalf of the petitioner. It was
contended on behalf of the petitioner that the findings of the Complaint
Committee had established the case of sexual harassment as the Complaint
Committee had accepted that respondent no.3 had held petitioner‟s arm on
29.04.2005 as was alleged by the petitioner. According to the petitioner,
since physical contact by respondent no.3 had been accepted, the
conclusion that respondent no.3 sexually harassed the petitioner would
necessarily have to follow.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Vishakha & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan and Ors.: (1997) 6 SCC 241 had set out the guidelines and
norms for due observance at work places. The said guidelines provided an
inclusive definition of the expression „sexual harassment‟, which is set out
below:-
“2. Definition:
For this purpose, sexual harassment includes such
unwelcome sexually determined behaviour (whether
directly or by implication) as:
a) physical contact and advances;
b) a demand or request for sexual favours;
c) sexuallycoloured remarks;
d) showing pornography;
e) any other unwelcome physical verbal or non-verbal
conduct of sexual nature.”
14. The above definition was also adopted under the Central Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter „the CCS Rules‟). The Rule
3C of the aforesaid Rules reads as under:-
3C. Prohibition of sexual harassment of working
women, - (1) No Government servant shall indulge in any
act of sexual harassment of any woman at any work
place.
(2) Every Government servant who is incharge of a work
place shall take appropriate steps to prevent sexual
harassment to any woman at the work place.
Explanation. - (I) For the purpose of this rule, -
(a) "sexual harassment" includes any one or more of the
following acts or behaviour (whether directly or by
implication) namely : -
(i) physical contact and advances; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) making sexually coloured remarks; or
(iv) showing pornography; or
(vi) any other unwelcome physical, verbal, non-verbal
conduct of a sexual nature.
(b) the following circumstances, among other
circumstances, if it occurs or is present in relation to or
connected with any act or behaviour of sexual harassment
may amount to sexual harassment:-
(i) implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in
employment; or
(ii) implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in
employment; or
(iii) implied or explicit threat about her present or future
employment status; or
(iv) interference with her work or creating an intimidating
or offensive or hostile work environment for her; or
(v) humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or
safety.
(c) "workplace" includes,-
(i) any department, organisation, undertaking,
establishment, enterprise, institution, office, branch or
unit which is established, owned, controlled or wholly or
substantially financed by funds provided directly or
indirectly by the Central Government;
(ii) hospitals or nursing homes;
(iii) any 'sports institute, stadium, sports complex or
competition or games venue, whether residential or not
used for training, sports or other activities relating
thereto;
(iv) any place visited by the employee arising out of or
during the course of employment including transportation
provided by the employer for undertaking such journey;
(v) a dwelling place or a house.”
15. Undoubtedly, physical contact or advances would constitute sexual
harassment provided such physical contact is a part of the sexually
determined behaviour. Such physical contact must be in the context of a
behaviour which is sexually oriented. Plainly, a mere accidental physical
contact, even though unwelcome, would not amount to sexual harassment.
Similarly, a physical contact which has no undertone of a sexual nature and
is not occasioned by the gender of the complainant may not necessarily
amount to sexual harassment.
16. In the present case, although the Complaint Committee had accepted
that there was evidence to show that respondent no.3 had held the arm of
the petitioner, it had concluded that the same was not a sexually
determined behaviour but was in the nature of the altercation. The
Complaint Committee concluded that respondent no.3 might have held the
petitioner‟s arm and thrown the material in her hand in a fit of anger;
although, the said incident may be a case of harassment and is deplorable,
the same would not qualify as a sexual harassment. Plainly, all physical
contact cannot be termed as sexual harassment and only a physical contact
or advances which are in the nature of an “unwelcome sexually determined
behaviour” would amount to sexual harassment.
17. It is also relevant to note that the petitioner in her complaint
regarding the incident that occurred on 29.04.2005 had reported as under:-
“Thereafter while I was working, Dr Sunil Bose, Scientist
entered the laboratory, stopped the machine, snatched
sample from undersigned, threw the materials and then
pushed me out of the laboratory and placed lock, while
shouting and using derogatory remarks against Dr Sood
and SC Community (as I am married to SC).”
18. Plainly, no allegation of any unwelcome sexually oriented behaviour
was alleged in the petitioner‟s note of 16.08.2005, the petitioner had, inter
alia, also alleged as under:-
“Dr Sunil Bose was harsh in his behaviour and asked me
rather threatened me not to enter in the labs and FP Block
while abusing yourself, Dr V. K. Sood and the
undersigned, Matter was reported to DRRI in person.”
19. Plainly, none of the above two complaints had mentioned any
allegation of any sexually oriented behaviour on the part of respondent
no.3. The Complaint Committee had examined the evidence on record and
had accepted that a charge of sexual harassment was not made out against
respondent no.3. This Court does not find that the said conclusion to be
perverse or without application of mind as was contended on behalf of the
petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority also accepted the said report and
this Court finds no infirmity with the impugned order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority.
20. The contention that the Complaint Committee was not constituted in
terms of the DoPT vide OM No. 11013/10/97-Estt.(A) dated 13.07.1999 is
also unmerited. The OM dated 13.07.1999 is set out below:-
"Subject:- Prevention of sexual harassment of
working women-Supreme Court
judgement in the case of Vishaka vs.
State of Rajasthan.
1. The undersigned is directed to refer to this
Department's office Memorandum of even number dated
13.2.98 vide which guidelines and norms to be observed to
prevent sexual harassment of working women were issued
in pursuance of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the
case of Vishaka & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (JT
1997 (7) SC 384).
2. The above guidelines inter-alia stipulate for the
creation of an appropriate complaint mechanism in every
organisation for re-dressal of the complaints made by the
victims. It has come to the notice of this Department that in
one of the Central Government Offices, the Committee
constituted for the purpose was headed by an official of the
rank of Upper Division Clerk. As an official not
sufficiently higher in rank may not be able to express
views independently/freely especially when the perpetrator
is holding an higher position, the arrangement makes
mockery of the system. It is therefore, requested that the
Committee constituted for redressal of the complaints by
the victims of sexual harassment should be headed by an
officer sufficiently higher in rank, so as to lend credibility
to the investigations.
3. The Ministries/Departments are requested to note the
above instructions for strict compliance.
(Smt. S. Bandopadhyay)
DIRECTOR"
21. A plain reading of the aforesaid OM indicates that the Complaint
Committee is required to be headed by “an officer sufficiently higher in
rank so to lend credibility to the investigation.” In the present case, there
is no dispute that the Chairman of the Complaint Committee was higher in
rank than respondent no.3. Further, two of the members of the Complaint
Committee were Scientists, one was a Technical Officer. In addition, the
Committee also included a member from a non-government organization.
22. In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity with the
constitution of the said Complaint Committee and the contention that the
said constitution is not in accordance with the OM dated 13.07.1999 is
unmerited.
23. The contention that an ad hoc Disciplinary Authority had been
constituted to exonerate respondent no.3 is also unfounded. It has been
explained by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that Dr Vikram Kumar, who was
the Director, CRRI had demitted the office on 02.09.2008 and the officer
who had taken charge as an Acting Director, CRRI was not functioning as
a Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, an ad hoc Disciplinary Authority
had been appointed. The petitioner had made a representation against the
appointment of the ad hoc Disciplinary Authority. In her representation,
the petitioner had requested that Dr Vikram Kumar be requested to
continue as a Disciplinary Authority until disposal of the case. She had
further requested that since appointment of a regular Director was in
process, status quo be maintained till such time as the Director
(Disciplinary Authority) is appointed. It is seen from the representation
that the only ground urged by the petitioner was that her previous
representation was pending before Dr Vikram Kumar. However, no other
apprehension regarding appointment of Dr Girish Sahni as an ad hoc
Disciplinary Authority was raised by the petitioner. Since Dr Vikram
Kumar had demitted office on 02.09.2008, the decision of the respondent
to appoint an ad hoc Disciplinary Authority cannot be faulted. The
petitioner did not express any apprehension regarding the impartiality or
independence of Dr Sahni as an ad hoc Disciplinary Authority and thus,
cannot be heard to challenge his independence at this stage.
24. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present
petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
OCTOBER 31, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment