Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: hostile work environment in Jaswinder Singh vs M/O Communications on 1 March, 2018Matching Fragments
a) Physical contact and advances;
advances; b) A demand or request for
b) A demand or request for sexual favours;
sexual favours; c) Sexually coloured
c) Sexually coloured remarks; remarks;
d) Showing pornography; d) Showing pornography;
e) Any other unwelcome e) Any other unwelcome
physical, verbal or non- physical, verbal or non-
verbal conduct of sexual verbal conduct of sexual
Where any of these acts is Where any of these acts is
committed in circumstances committed in circumstances
hereunder the victim of such hereunder the victim of such
conduct has a reasonable conduct has a reasonable
apprehension that in relation to apprehension that in relation to
the victim's employment or work the victim's employment or
whether she is drawing salary, or work whether she is drawing
honorarium or voluntary, salary, or honorarium or
OA-2167/2017
whether in Government, public or voluntary, whether in
private enterprise such conduct Government, public or private
can be humiliating and may enterprise such conduct can be
constitute a health and safety humiliating and may constitute
problem. It is discriminatory for a health and safety problem. It
instance when the woman has is discriminatory for instance
reasonable grounds to believe that when the woman has
her objection would disadvantage reasonable grounds to believe
her in connection wither that her objection would
employment or work including disadvantage her in connection
recruiting or promotion or when with hr employment or work
it creates a hostile work including recruiting or
environment. Adverse promotion or when it creates a
consequences might by visit if the hostile work environment.
victim does not consent to the Adverse consequences might
conduct in question or raises any by visit if the victim does not
objection thereto." consent to the conduct in
question or raises any objection
thereto."
3. A perusal of the above definition 20. A perusal of the above
of sexual harassment indicates definition of sexual harassment
OA-2167/2017
Any action or gesture, whether
directly or by implication, aims at It was held by the Supreme
or has the tendency to outrage the Court
modesty of a female employee,
must fall under the general Any action or gesture, whether
concept of the definition of sexual directly or by implication, aims
harassment. Sexual harassment is at or has the tendency to
a form of sex discrimination outrage the modesty of a
projected through unwelcome female employee, must fall
sexual advances, request for under the general concept of
sexual favours and other verbal or the definition of sexual
physical conduct with sexual harassment. Sexual harassment
overtones, whether directly or by is a form of sex discrimination
implication, particularly when projected through unwelcome
submission to or rejection of such sexual advances, request for
a conduct by the female employee sexual favours and other verbal
was capable of being used for or physical conduct with
effecting the employment of the sexual overtones, whether
female employee and directly or by implication,
unreasonably interfering with her particularly when submission
work performance and had the to or rejection of such a
effect of creating an intimidating conduct by the female
or hostile working environment employee was capable of being
for her. used for effecting the
employment of the female
The observations made by the employee and unreasonably
High Court to the effect that since interfering with her work
the respondent did not actually performance and had the effect
molest Miss X but only tried to of creating an intimidating or
molest her and, therefore, his hostile working environment
removal from service was not for her.
warranted rebel against realism
and lose their sanctity and The observations made by the
subjected to harassment by Shri 26. The evidence of Ms. Ranju Singh. The evidence also Prasad clearly establishes that establishes that the harassment she was subjected to was of a sexual nature. It also harassment by Shri Singh. The emerges from the evidence that evidence also establishes that whenever Mr. Singh called her, he the harassment was of a sexual OA-2167/2017 put on the "do not disturb" sign nature. It also emerges from clearly creating an atmosphere of the evidence that whenever secrecy and insecurity for a Mr. Singh called her, he put on woman employee. Further the "do not disturb" sign comments such as "if you clearly creating an atmosphere cooperate with me, you will have of secrecy and insecurity for a no problem" are clearly woman employee. Further suggestive of sexual and improper comments such as "if you and immoral demands. It further cooperate with me, you will emerges from the complaint that have no problem" are clearly on the date of the incident, Mr. suggestive of sexual and Singh got up from his chair and improper and immoral put his arm on her shoulder. This demands. It further emerges physical contact is clearly of from the complaint that on the unwanted nature and this coupled date of the incident, Mr. Singh with his remarks and the fact that got up from his chair and put he created an atmosphere of his arm on her shoulder. This secrecy leads to the conclusion physical contact is clearly of that is guilty of sexual harassment unwanted nature and this at the work place within the coupled with his remarks and meaning of the judgment of the the fact that he created an Supreme Court in Vishaka Vs. atmosphere of secrecy leads to State of Rajasthan (supra). He the conclusion that he has also created a hostile working indulged in sexual harassment environment for Ms. Ranju at the work place within the Prasad. meaning of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra). He also created a hostile working environment for Ms. Ranju Prasad.
Ms. Sunita's deputation was
cancelled. Even assuming that Mr.
Singh was not responsible for
cancellation of deputation, the
sexual harassment stands
established as mentioned above.
Moreover, the committee has
failed to take into consideration
the position of dominace that Mr.
Singh admittedly occupied in
relation to Ms. Sunita and her
condition of employment.
12. The case of sexual harassment of 32. The case of sexual
Ms. Sunita against Mr. Singh is harassment against Mr. Singh
clearly made out on the evidence is clearly made out against Ms.
on record and the conclusion of Sunita on the evidence on
the committee to the extent that a record that the conclusion of
case of sexual harassment is not the committee to the extent that
made out is perverse. it case of sexual harassment is
not made out is perverse. The
findings of the inquiry
committee are also perverse
because the standard of proof
OA-2167/2017
required to establish Sexual
Harassment is "balance of
probabilities" and not "beyond
doubt" as the committee seems
to think. This being a civil case
and not criminal case. The
former test applies i.e. of
balance of probabilities and not
the latter. Judged by that
standard, in the instant case
Sexual Harassment alleged is
established.
13. Mr. Singh is also guilty of creating 33. It is also evident from the
a hostile working environment by Committees own finding that it
his repeated misconduct. It is also is not in the interest of the
evidence from the Committee establishment to have Mr.
own finding that it is not in the Singh working in the present
interest of the establishment to office and hence the Committee
have Mr. Singh working in the recommends his transfer. This
present office and hence the and other evidence on record
Committee recommends his also establishes that Mr. Singh
transfer. This and other evidence has created a "hostile working
on record also establishes that Mr. environment" for women.
Singh has created a "hostile
working environment" for
women.
14. On the facts established by the No equivalence
Inquiry Committee, I am entitled
to differ with the findings if they
are perverse or if irrelevant facts
are taken into consideration. I
have already pointed out that the
findings were perverse. That
apart, the Inquiry Committee has
not taken into consideration the
relevant fact that the charged
officer was in a position of
authority over each of the three
women who have complained
against him and was in a position
to influence and affect their terms
and condition of appointment
including transfer and deputation.
He was exercising supervisory
and disciplinary control over
them.
15. Hence, for the reasons stated In view of the above, I come to
above, I differ from the opinion of the conclusion that the findings
the Inquiry Committee and have of the inquiry committee are
come to the conclusion that the perverse in as much as the case
findings of the Inquiry Committee of misconduct of having
OA-2167/2017
are perverse in as much as the committed sexual harassment
case of misconduct of having against Ms. Ranju Prasad and
committed sexual harassment Ms.Sunita stand proved on the
against Ms.Ranju Prasad and Ms. evidence on record. The case
Sunita stand proved on the of Ms. Ramandeep kaur is not
evidence on record. The being considered as she did not
Committee has failed to take note subject herself to cross-
of the position of dominance of examination. And in view of
Mr. Singh over these women and the above, Disciplinary
the vulnerability of these women Authority is at liberty to differ
at workplace. The case of with the Inquiry Committee
Ms.Ramandeep Kaur is not being report. Having regard to the
considered, as she did not subject law, a finding to that effect and
herself to cross-examination. The tentative reasons for differing
Committee has failed to note that from the opinion of the Inquiry
the repeated complaint by women Committee may be recorded.
of sexual harassment have created Also, an opportunity should be
a hostile working environment. given to the charge-sheeted
employee to represent against
the finding of the Disciplinary
Authority. Also, Mr. Singh
should be provided with the
copy of the inquiry report, the
tentative findings of the
disciplinary authority
disagreeing with the findings
of the inquiry report at the
earliest.
16. In my opinion, there is no need to No equivalence
remit the matter for further
inquiry and I am at liberty under
rule 15 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules
1965 to differ with the conclusion
of the Inquiry Committee on
conclusive facts.
17. Since I have differed with the A reading of the above judicial
findings of the Inquiry pronouncements indicates that
Committee, I hereby grant a it is within the prerogative of
period of 30 days from the date of the Disciplinary Authority to
issuance of this decision to the differ from the report of
delinquent to make a inquiry officer. However, in
representation against the doing so the Disciplinary
findings and my decision Authority must record its
recorded herein. Mr. Singh reason for differing with the
should be provided with the copy report of Inquiry Officer. Also,