NAVNEET KAUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the order passed by the learned single Judge on 3rd August, 2006 disposing of the application registered as CM No.8743/2006 is under challenge. The aforesaid application was filed by the appellant herein praying for stay of further proceedings of the second enquiry which is undertaken by the respondent No.3 in respect of the allegations made by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant herein submitted a complaint against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 alleging that those two persons through their overt acts, gestures and at times directly, demanded sexual favours from the appellant who being a new appointee/probationer did not dare to openly protest/compliant against such unsolicited demands of the said respondents. The aforesaid complaint was required to be considered in terms of the guidelines and norms laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka in respect of the compliant of sexual harassment at workplace. The aforesaid complaint which was initially filed before the Chairman, Electronics and Computer Software Export Promotion Council was not acted upon and heeded to and not attended. Having no other alternative, the appellant filed a similar complaint of sexual harassment against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 before the Secretary, DIT, Government of India. The said complaint was processed by the Secretary and he subsequently issued a direction directing Ms. Madhu Mahajan, Director, DIT, Government of India to enquire into the matter. Consequent upon the aforesaid entrustment Ms. Madhu Mahajan directed the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 not to take any action against the appellant till completion of the enquiry. On 21.10.2004, the appellant filed another complaint stated that to be a comprehensive complaint of the appellant alleging sexual harassment by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 which was forwarded to the Enquiry Committee constituted to look into the said matter under the Chairpersonship of Ms. Madhu Mahajan. The said committee constituted by the DIT enquired into the matter and submitted a report. The said enquiry report is referred to as the first enquiry report.

(3.) After the said report was published, the appellant sought for action to be taken on the basis of the said first report. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 Corporation took up a stand that the aforesaid enquiry conducted under the orders of the DIT, Government of India is without jurisdiction and cannot be treated as an enquiry made by the competent authority/disciplinary authority as DIT has no jurisdiction nor it has any disciplinary authority of the appellant. It was also the stand taken that the guidelines/rules in terms of which the aforesaid enquiry was conducted do not apply to the Corporation as also the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are employees of the respondent No.3. Accordingly, the stand taken was that there are separate service regulations framed by the respondent No.3 governing the service conditions of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are the employees of respondent No.3. Having taken the aforesaid stand, the respondent No.3 ordered for an enquiry to be conducted in respect of the allegations made regarding sexual harassment by the Committee constituted by the respondent No.3. The appellant has challenged constitution of the said committee on the ground that the same is not constituted according to the guidelines and the norms laid down by the Supreme Court for constitution of such committees. Consequently, the constitution of the committee and conduct of the enquiry by the said committee are the subject matters which are challenged by filing the writ petition.