(1.) The Registry is directed to anonymize the name of the complainant in this Judgment, all orders that have been passed as well as in the records which are publicly available.
(2.) We are dealing with a litigation relating to sexual harassment. Sexual harassment in any form at the work place must be viewed seriously and the harasser should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law. We say so because the same humiliates and frustrates a victim of sexual harassment, more particularly when the harasser goes unpunished or is let off with a relatively minor penalty. However, at the same time, it should be kept in mind that the charge of this nature is very easy to make and is very difficult to rebut. When a plea is taken of false implication for extraneous reasons, the courts have a duty to make deeper scrutiny of the evidence and decide the acceptability or otherwise of the accusations. Every care should be taken to separate the chaff from the grain. The veracity and genuineness of the complaint should be scrutinised to prevent any misuse of such laudable laws enunciated for the upliftment of the society and for equal rights of people without gender discrimination by anybody under the garb of "sexual harassment", lest justice rendering system would become a mockery. In such circumstances, we have decided to look into this matter closely and in details.
(3.) The respondent herein was serving as the Area Organizer i.e., the Local Head of Office of the Service Selection Board (for short, "the SSB"), Rangia, State of Assam between September, 2006 to May, 2012. In the very same office, a lady employee was serving as the Field Assistant (Lady) (hereinafter referred to as the "complainant"). She lodged a complaint (hereinafter referred to as the "first complaint") addressed to the Inspector General (for short, "IG"), Frontier Headquarters, Guwahati with one copy each forwarded to the DG SSB, New Delhi, Dy. IG, SSB, SHQ, Tezpur and the Chairperson of the National Women Rights Commission, New Delhi inter alia alleging sexual harassment at the hands of the respondent. The first complaint dtd. 30/8/2011 reads thus: -