Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The report submitted by the Complaint Committee appears to be exhaustive and very lucid containing the summary of the allegations made in the complaint, scope of inquiry, summary of the inquiry and the findings of the Committee.

7. The complaints made by respondent No.4 appears to be summarized by the Complaint Committee and the summary of the complaint has been very lucidly reflected in Part-I of the report which reads as follows:-

"PART-I A) SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT The Complaint Committee has examined the complaint in the light of the definition of Sexual Harassment as defined in the case of Visakha Vs. State of Rajasthan. Instruction laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medha Kotwal Lele and others Vs. Union of India was also kept in mind.

20. The next argument advanced by learned counsel, Mr. Deb is that the allegations whatever have been made by the respondent No.4 does not amount to "sexual harassment" as defined in Vishaka's case. According to Mr. Deb, the Complaint Committee rightly observed that the allegations made by respondent No.4 may amount to harassment but cannot be termed as "sexual harassment".

Mr. Lodh and Mr. Pal submitted that it was a misconception of the Complaint Committee that those allegations which were found to have proved against the petitioner cannot be termed as sexual harassment. The allegations were well covered by the definition of sexual harassment defined in Vishaka's case as well as defined in the standing order of the CRPF.

(v) a dwelling place or a house."

25. According to Mr. Deb, Clause (b) and (c) of Sub rule (2) of Rule 3(c) was incorporated in the year 2014 whereas the alleged sexual harassment of the respondent No.4 was in the year 2009 and therefore, the circumstances contained in Clause (b) and

(c) cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner.

26. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel referring to the standing order No.4 of 2004 dated 16.08.2004 submitted that after Vishaka's case the Disciplinary Authority of CRPF issued the standing order. A copy which is annexed as Annexure-A series to the additional counter affidavit which defined the sexual harassment thus:-

28. To constitute sexual harassment it is not required that the delinquent is to touch the body of the victim lady or to molest her in any other manner. Sexual harassment is a behaviour of the offender aimed at a woman employee in the workplace and that behaviour shall be sexually oriented attributed to a woman at workplace. An unusual conduct or behaviour to a woman employee at workplace which is not generally expected and from which an inference may be drawn that the behaviour was because of the fact that the victim was a woman amounts to "sexual harassment" in workplace. If we carefully read the definition in Vishaka's case, it would appear that the five categories which the Apex Court noted while defining sexual harassment was an inclusive definition. It means the Apex Court left it open to appreciate particular facts and circumstances in a particular case as to whether it amounts to sexual harassment or not. The definition given by the Apex Court, therefore, is not a restricted definition rather it is an extensive definition which includes many other aspects apart from those five categories specified by the Apex Court.