SEEMA LEPCHA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM
HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
STATE OF SIKKIM,DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,REGIONAL MANAGER,Ms. Renu Chettri,Mr. D.D. Nayak
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HEARD Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate
General for respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6. Also heard Mr. A.
Moulik, learned Senior Counsel for respondents No. 5 and 8 and
Mrs. Laxmi Chakraborty, learned Counsel for respondent No. 7.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner, as pleaded by her learned counsel Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, is that the petitioner was
subjected to sexual harassment in her working place, namely,
Central Bank of India, Gangtok Branch during the working hours
on 01.03.2008. The complaint lodged by the petitioner on
01.03.2008 in that regard, in spite of an investigation conducted by the 6th respondent herein ended in vain, as per the final report
dated 20.06.2008 submitted before the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, East & North at Gangtok.
2.2 Hence, having no option, the petitioner has approached this Court on 27.04.2010 for issue of writ of Mandamus directing the State respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 to: (i) submit status report regarding the constitution of the complaint committee; (ii) constitute Complaint Committee as laid down in the guidelines, have sensitization training for the members of the Committee and also to have wider publication of the guidelines in the various Government departments and private sectors; (iii) frame a proper policy to combat the offence of sexual harassment; (iv) issue strict order to the Police personnel to conduct the training on sexual harassment at workplace to sensitize the officer in dealing the cases of sexual offence to women; and (v) handle the case properly with and try not to influence any complaint.
Taking into consideration the grave nature of the complaint, this Court by order dated 19.08.2010 directed the
Central Bank of India to get instructions on the following queries
(i) Whether any Complaint Committee as contemplated by the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Vishaka and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241 has been constituted to go into the sexual harassment in working places of the Bank (Management)? (ii) If so, whether the grievance of the petitioner has already been referred to such Complaint Committee? (iii) If not, what was the reason for not referring the impugned grievance to the Complaint Committee? (iv) If already the same is referred to, what is the stage of the proceedings before the Complaint Committee? (v) If the proceedings are already over, what are the findings of the Committee?
(3.) THE fair stand taken by the State Government as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the
State Government is prepared to take all necessary steps to
bring a proper legislation in compliance with the decision of the
Apex Court in Vishaka & Others vs. State of Rajasthan &
Others reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241, was appreciated and
recorded in the said Order dated 19.08.2010.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.