Smt. Seema Lepcha vs The State of Sikkim and Others

P.D. Dinakaran, C.J.—Heard Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. J.B. Pradhan, learned Additional Advocate General for Respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6. Also heard Mr. A. Moulik, learned Senior Counsel for Respondents No. 5 and 8 and Mrs. Laxmi Chakraborty, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 7.

2.1 The grievance of the Petitioner, as pleaded by her learned Counsel Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, is that the Petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment in her working place, namely, Central Bank of India, Gangtok Branch during the working hours on 01.03.2008. The complaint lodged by the Petitioner on 01.03.2008 in that regard, in spite of an investigation conducted by the 6th Respondent herein ended in vain, as per the final report dated 20.06.2008 submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East & North at Gangtok.

2.2 Hence, having no option, the Petitioner has approached this Court on 27.04.2010 for issue of writ of Mandamus directing the State Respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 to:

(i) submit status report regarding the constitution of the complaint committee;

(ii) constitute Complaint Committee as laid down in the guidelines, have sensitization training for the members of the Committee and also to have wider publication of the guidelines in the various Government departments and private sectors;

(iii) frame a proper policy to combat the offence of sexual harassment;

(iv) issue strict order to the Police personnel to conduct the training on sexual harassment at workplace to sensitize the officer in dealing the cases of sexual offence to women; and

(v) handle the case properly with and try not to influence any complaint.

Taking into consideration the grave nature of the complaint, this Court by order dated 19.08.2010 directed the Central Bank of India to get instructions on the following queries:

(i) Whether any Complaint Committee as contemplated by the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, has been constituted to go into the sexual harassment in working places of the Bank (Management)?

(ii) If so, whether the grievance of the Petitioner has already been referred to such Complaint Committee?

(iii) If not, what was the reason for not referring the impugned grievance to the Complaint Committee?

(iv) If already the same is referred to, what is the stage of the proceedings before the Complaint Committee?

(v) If the proceedings are already over, what are the findings of the Committee?

The fair stand taken by the State Government as submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, that the State Government is prepared to take all necessary steps to bring a proper legislation in compliance with the decision of the Apex Court in Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, , was appreciated and recorded in the said Order dated 19.08.2010.

Pursuant to the said direction dated 19.08.2010, the 5th Respondent Bank filed an affidavit dated 28.09.2010 wherein it was stated that the Management of the Bank at the Regional Office level had constituted a Complaint Committee to enquire into the sexual harassment of the employees of the 5th Respondent Bank in the State of Sikkim in compliance with the Order of the Apex Court in Vishaka''s case (supra). The Complaint Committee consists of the following personnel:

-------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. Name Designation Present Status No. Placement -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Ms. Manisha Sikder ARM RO-Siliguri Chairperson -------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Ms. T.Y. Bhutia BM(JMGS-I) Tadong Member -------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Ms. Passang D. HC-II Tadong Member Sherpa -------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Sri Niranjan Saha Manager Rangpo Member -------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Ms. Chabi Maya Gram Vikash West Member Sharma Sanghatan, Pendam NGO, Pendam (East (Reg. No. Sikkim). 1627/07) --------------------------------------------------------------------

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner was also satisfied that the Complaint Committee constituted as above, is in full compliance of the order of the Apex Court in Vishaka''s case (supra).

Of course, Dr. Doma T. Bhutia, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made very serious objection against the 7th Respondent reserving his right to take appropriate steps against the ill designed attempt of the Petitioner in the matter.

In our considered opinion, when a reputation of a person, be that either the Petitioner or the 7th Respondent is at stake such person has got every right in law to work out his legitimate right. Therefore, we do not see anything to get perturbed in this regard.

In view of the subsequent developments referred to above, the 5th Respondent Bank has now constituted a Complaint Committee, in compliance with the order of the Apex Court in Vishaka''s case (supra). It may, therefore, not be appropriate for this Court to go into the merits and demerits of the allegations made by the Petitioner or that of the 5th and the 7th Respondents at this stage as otherwise it would prejudice the said Respondents during further enquiry into the matter.

Therefore, suffice it to direct the Complaint Committee constituted by the 5th Respondent Bank as above to hold an enquiry into the allegations made by the Petitioner against the 7th Respondent, and of course, to give a fair and reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner as well as the 7th Respondent in compliance with the principles of natural justice and proceed in accordance with law.

Such enquiry shall be completed and action taken, if required, in accordance with law within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.

Before disposing the case, we repose our confidence that the State Government shall bring an appropriate legislation in the matter as directed by the Apex Court in Vishaka''s case (supra) at the earliest possible time.

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.