The Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing an application for impleadment filed by a woman staffer of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) who had accused a senior officer of sexual harassment.
It held that this case cannot be put in the category of a conventional service matter where, once the employer gets a complaint against an employee from another staffer and disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the role of the complainant ceases.
The CAT, in its order, had said service jurisprudence did not permit a right of audience to the victim.
Hence, she could not participate in the proceedings pending before it, the tribunal had said while rejecting her application.
The tribunal was hearing a petition filed by a senior legal officer in the Enforcement Directorate, who was found guilty by the Competent Disciplinary Authority (CDA) of sexually harassing the woman.
The CDA functions under the Ministry of Finance.
The officer had opposed the woman's plea and had maintained that he was innocent.
He had also told the high court that the petitioner filed the application for impleadment before the tribunal only to delay the proceedings.
The woman, then posted in Mumbai, had approached the high court after her application for impleadment was rejected by the tribunal.
"This is a case where the petitioner has levelled allegations of sexual harassment and it was at her instance that an inquiry has been conducted by the employer.
"In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be termed as a busy body or a rank outsider, for shutting the door on her face," a high court bench justices Hima Kohli and Rekha Palli said.
The only person aggrieved in cases of sexual harassment at the workplace is the complainant, it said.
"It would, therefore, be a travesty of justice if the petitioner/complainant is denied audience in a case arising out of proceedings based on a complaint made by her against the wrongdoer," the court said.
It held the woman has the locus standi to file an application for impleadment before the tribunal.
According to the complaint made by the woman in 2012, the senior legal officer had called her frequently to Delhi under the pretext of meetings and briefing counsel of the Supreme Court and on all such occasions he had sexually harassed her.
The woman had made an oral complaint against the officer in July 2012. Her statement was recorded in August that year.
While being posted in Mumbai, she filed a formal complaint in December 2012 after which the matter was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee of the agency.
The panel concluded in January 2014 that allegations against the man were proved and recommended to the CDA imposition of appropriate penalty as well as compensation of Rs 10,000 to the woman.
The man had challenged the CDA order in the CAT, which adjudicates disputes relating to recruitment and conditions of service of the central government employees.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
