Smt. Savita Shinde v. State Of M.P & Ors.

Heard.

This Public Interest Litigation has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of directions to the respondents No. 1 to 6 in regard to sexual harassment of a lady at Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education (LNIPE) respondent No. 5.

The petitioner pleaded that she is a social worker and has a qualification of post graduation. She has been working for empowering women and protection of women rights. The respondent No. 5 is a deemed university of repute. There are near about 250 girls students in the hostels of University. The institute has been imparting degree and diploma courses as well as M.Phil and Ph.D and courses for physical education.

One Coordinator for Special Olympics Bharat (hereinafter described as ‘complainant’) made a complaint to the Director, PRC, LNIPE, Gwalior that the then In-charge Vice Chancellor came to Mahatma Gandhi Hostel on 07.07.2013 at around 8.30 a.m alongwith his wife. The complainant alongwith her friend offered a cup of tea to the In-charge Vice Chancellor and his wife and when the complainant went to wash room to clean the kettle said person entered into the wash room and informed her that he could get a job having salary of Rs. 50,000/- per month.

Thereafter, he hugged her and tried to molest her. The complainant pushed her aside and called her colleague and thereafter the complaint was lodged with the Director, PRC, LNIPE, Gwalior. An FIR was also lodged at the Police Station.

The petitioner in this PIL has pleaded that in spite of lodging the complaint and FIR no action has been taken by the authorities against the respondent No. 7. He was not arrested by the police. It is further pleaded that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1997 SC 3011 have not been followed neither the authorities have taken any action in accordance with the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Respondent No. 5-University in its reply pleaded that a complaint was received by the Director of PRC and it was forwarded to the answering respondent.

Thereafter an FIR was lodged on 8.7.2013 at 10.45 p.m and the matter is under investigation. There is a five member committee constituted with a retired lady District and Sessions Judge as Presiding Officer in the respondent University to lookafter complaint of sexual harassment. The compliant received by the Institute was forwarded to the Committee for enquiry and the committee had enquired the matter. It is further pleaded that in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, an appropriate action shall be taken in the matter.

Respondent No. 7 in its reply submitted that the petitioner has no locus standito file this petition. It is further submitted that after taking charge of Vice Chancellor, the respondent No. 7 had discovered certain irregularities and referred the matter for investigation to the Ministry, hence, a conspiracy was created against the respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 denied the fact that he had molested the complainant or acted in indecent manner. It is further submitted that wife of the respondent No. 7 was present at that time, hence, it was not possible for the respondent No. 7 to take undue advantage of his position. 25% of the total students of the University staged demonstration against the false implication and the said demonstration was continued upto the period of one week. The respondent No. 7 also pleaded that he had been granted anticipatory bail by the court in the criminal case. The respondent No. 7 also filed copies of the news paper cuttings showing the fact that the students of the university staged demonstration against false implication of the respondent No. 7.

From the aforesaid facts of the case it is clear that there are allegations and counter allegations in regard to the incident. The respondent No. 7 has denied the incident. As per the complaint lodged by the complainant, wife of the respondent No. 7 was present in the hostel.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 University submitted a report of enquiry conducted by the committee consisting of Renu Sharma, Chairperson, Professor Manika Devnath, Member, Deputy Registrar M.P Singh, Member, Mrs. Sarla Joseph Das Member and Mrs. Jyoti Tirkey, Member.

The committee in its finding found the allegation of harassment in working place against the then Vice Chancellor proved and recommended further action against the then Vice Chancellor. Following are the findings of the committee:

“Given the above evidence and in light of the available information, the committee concludes on the balance of probability that the allegations of harassment in the workplace made by Sulekha Rana regarding Dr. Ramesh Pal Professor L.N.I.P.E Gwalior are founded. Acts alleged to have been committed by him are covered under the provisions of Section 2(n)(i) and (v) and Section 3(2) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The complainant had prayed for action to be taken on her complaint and no settlement request was made by the aggrieved person before the Inquiry Committee.

Under Section 13(3) of “The Act” the Internal Complaint Committee having come to the conclusion that the allegations against Dr. Ramesh Pal Professor for Sexual Harassment have been proved it is recommended to take action for “Sexual Harassment” in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules applicable to Dr. Ramesh Pal, Professor, L.N.I.P.E Gwalior.

In conducing this enquiry, the rules of procedural fairness were observed. It was ensured that the parties including witnesses were the opportunity to verify their statements. The committee took into account all the comments made by the parties in regard to the facts of our assessment of this case and in the conclusions presented above.”

The Committee submitted its report to the Institute on 28.11.2013 It was placed in 53 meeting of the institute held on 29.11.2013 A decision was taken in the meeting to forward the copy of the report to respondent No. 7 and he was directed to submit his representation and thereafter the matter shall be forwarded to the Managing Board.

From the aforesaid facts of the case, it is clear that the Committee found the allegations proved and thereafter the matter is under active consideration before the institute. In our opinion, the institute has already taken action in accordance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishakha's case. A report has also been lodged at the Police Station and the matter is under investigation.

Respondent No. 7 has been enlarged on anticipatory bail. There are allegations and counter allegations by the parties. In our opinion, in this PIL further direction in regard to prosecution could not be issued because the complainant has a remedy to file appropriate proceeding and the matter is under investigation, however, we observe that looking to the facts of the case and nature of allegation, it is obligatory on the part of the investigating agency to complete the investigation as early as possible and take necessary steps in accordance with law.

In regard to disciplinary action required to be taken against the respondent No. 7, the committee has already submitted its report to the management.

Learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 has informed that respondent No. 7 challenged the report of the committee before the High Court in a writ petition and it is pending. He also informed the court that there is no stay in the matter.

In this view of the matter, in our opinion, it is obligatory on the part of the respondents No. 5 and 6 to take action in accordance with law on the report. It is hereby directed that the concerned authorities i.e respondents No. 5 and 6 shall take action on the report in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. It is further clarified that this court has not opined about the merits of the case and the respondents are at liberty to take action in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.