LAWS(KER)-2016-8-24

UNION OF INDIA Vs. V.S. JAITHA

Decided On August 01, 2016
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
V.S. Jaitha Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether a compliant preferred by the victim with the allegation of 'sexual harassment' in the workplace, has to be scrutinised by the 'Complaints Committee' itself, to form an opinion as to involvement of any such instance of sexual harassment before proceeding with further steps or whether it could be examined by the 'Disciplinary Authority' at the first instance to see whether it involves any such misconduct to be proceeded with, by the enquiring authority [who is the Complaints Committee in terms of the verdict of the Apex court in Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others (AIR 1997 SC 3011)], is the basic point to be considered in this writ petition.

(2.) The petitioners were the respondents before the Tribunal. The office of the 5th petitioner was being held by the 4th petitioner in his capacity as the Accountant General (A&E) Kerala. During the relevant time, the Accountant General's office was entrusted with the task of implementation of one rank one pension scheme for the State Government employees in the year 2006. Considering the need of the hour and the requisite output to be achieved in a time bound manner, the 4th petitioner (who was the 4th respondent) decided to outsource a part of the work to an outside agency, which was to the chagrin of some of the employees who agitated against it. A 'dharna' was convened by the agitating employees and their association in the portico of the AG's office during the period from 19.12.2006 to 22.12.2006. According to the 4th/5th petitioner, the agitators were virtually blocking the way to the office by sitting in front of the office and the 4th/5th petitioner had no other way to enter and exit the office. The agitation was mainly in connection with the suspension of another employee by name Santhosh Kumar, a member of their Association pursuant to the alleged misconduct committed by him in causing disturbance to a 'Training programme' arranged by the 4th/5th petitioner. The frequent interruption made by him questioning the outsourcing of the work and also in obeying the orders issued by the 4th/5th petitioner. The agitation was going out of proportion and several persons from outside also joined the team.

(3.) On 19/20.12.2006, particularly during lunch break and such other time, the 4th/5th petitioner had to cross through the agitators making use of the little space available in between to have entry and exit to his office. This, according to the 4th petitioner was done by him without causing any embarrassment to anybody and still, in order to precipitate the issue and take it to wrong dimensions, the respondents 1 to 9 filed Annexures A - 10 complaint dated 12.01.2007 before the Chairperson of the Committee for redressal of sexual harassment on working women. As the Chairperson (a lady officer) was a subordinate officer of the 4th/5th petitioner, in terms of clauses (f) and (g) of Annexure -R1 Circular dated 24.01.2000, the complaint was forwarded to the headquarters at New Delhi, as per Annexure A11 dated 05.02.2007. The competent authority called for a report and after considering the same and also after going through the contents of Annexure A10 complaint observed that no instance of any sexual harassment was involved in Annexure - A10 and the position was ordered to be informed to the parties concerned. This in turn was communicated to the employees as per Annexure -A13 dated 22.03.2007, that the complaint did not come within the purview of any instance of sexual harassment to be enquired into.