Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 870 (PAT)

Rashmi Singh v. State Of Bihar

2013-07-25

JAYANANDAN SINGH

body2013
ORAL ORDER The Apex Court, by its judgment in the case of Vishaka and others Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others (AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3011) directed all the State Governments, its instrumentality and Public Sectors Undertakings to evolve mechanism for redressal of grievance of female employees against any complaint of their sexual harassment by male employees or their seniors. It directed the Governments to constitute a Grievance Redressal Committee at different levels. The order was in rem and all the authorities had to constitute such a Committee. Accordingly, the Government of Bihar also, by notification dated 10.09.2009 published in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 24.09.2009, constituted such a Committee at the State level. 2. Petitioner, while working as Child Development Project Officer, posted at Danapur, allegedly faced some sexual harassment at the hands of respondent no.11 who was at that time posted as Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar. She, accordingly, filed her complaint in the Department on 15.07.2009, vide Annexure-1. After constitution of the Committee, her complaint was transferred to it. The Committee held some hearing and examined some witnesses, but did not submit its report. Hence, she has moved this Court seeking, inter alia, a direction to the Committee to take a final decision in the matter. 3. Respondents were called upon to file an affidavit as to why complaint of petitioner has remained pending with the Committee so far. They have filed their counter affidavit in which they have stated that the matter was heard on many dates, witnesses were examined and documents were collected. However, before the Committee could take a final decision, in terms of the order of the Apex Court, the Departmental Level Complaint Committee was constituted by an office order of the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department contained in Memo No.1929 dated 24.04.2013, which was partially amended by an office order contained in Memo No.2595 dated 04.06.2013, vide Annexure-B. Hence, the complaint filed by petitioner has been transferred by the State Level Committee to the Departmental Level Committee. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a list of class-1 Officers of the State Government posted in different pay-scales obtained from the Official Website. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a list of class-1 Officers of the State Government posted in different pay-scales obtained from the Official Website. From the list he points out that respondent no.11 is way above the Chairman of the Departmental Level Committee in hierarchy and all other official members are also much junior to him. Hence, He submits that the Departmental Level Committee may not be in a position to take an objective view of the matter and take a decision without any bias or prejudice. He also submits that hearing has almost been completed by the State Level Committee and, therefore, in the interest of justice, it will be appropriate that the State Level Committee itself continues with it and concludes the hearing of the complaint and submits a report. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute that respondent no.11 is senior to all the officials who are members of the Departmental Level Committee constituted in the Department of Social Welfare. However, he submits that Chairman of the Committee is the senior most lady IAS in the cadre. He also submits that the State Level Committee, in fact, is the Appellate Authority against any decision of the Departmental Level Committee. Hence, the matter has to be considered by the Departmental Level Committee and if the petitioner is not satisfied with its report, she will have an opportunity to file an appeal before the State Level Committee. 6. In normal course, that would have been a proper procedure. However, since complaint of the petitioner is against such a high rank officer that junior officers constituting the Committee may not be in a position to consider her complaint without any bias or prejudice, this apprehension may be correct or may not be correct, but it cannot be disputed that apprehension in the mind of the petitioner is reasonable. 7. In the circumstances, in the facts of the case, this Court considers it appropriate that complaint of the petitioner should be transferred back to the State Level Committee which should continue with the hearing of the matter and come to a final decision at an early date. 8. 7. In the circumstances, in the facts of the case, this Court considers it appropriate that complaint of the petitioner should be transferred back to the State Level Committee which should continue with the hearing of the matter and come to a final decision at an early date. 8. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of with a direction to the Principal Secretary of the Social Welfare Department to transmit the records of the complaint of petitioner to the Member Secretary, State Level Committee who shall place the matter before the Committee for resuming hearing of the matter as early as possible. Since the complaint of the petitioner is pending since 2009, this Court directs the State Level Committee to take a final decision in accordance with law in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the records. Since this order is being passed on the prayer of the petitioner, petitioner is estopped from raising any grievance in future that she has lost the forum of appeal before the Appellate Authority because her matter is being decided directly by the State Level Committee. 9. It goes without saying that the report of the State Level Committee in the matter shall be given the status, as required under the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules.