UNION OF INDIA & ORS Vs. SHIBRAM SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sexual harassment of insecure women by men, who are in a position of power and might, has assumed menacing proportions in India. Such harassment is not only rampant in public places, viz. roads, parks, gatherings, theatre/cinema halls, departmental stores, transport vehicles, etc., but also in private places, such as the cosy interior of one's home, or chamber/cabin in an office/workshop, or even within the four corners of rooms in hotels/guesthouses, etc. A crosssection of the society perceives such harassment as a disease but more often than not, it is the lust of the high and the mighty that is the real cause therefor. The ravished finds it extremely difficult to get back to normal life; the incident of being sexually harassed by the overpowering class comes to haunt her day after day. This is one side of the coin. On the other side, we have ambitious women who, seeking to move up the ladder of life and to attain a status, allow the high and the mighty to exploit them for obtaining special favours and after sometime, when there is nothing more to be obtained, cry foul and complain of sexual harassment. While it takes years for an honest, dedicated and dutiful man to build up his reputation, tarnishing such reputation built over the years and bringing such a man down in the public eye and subjecting him to ridicule does not take more than a moment's time. Indeed, subject to proof of sexual harassment of insecure women by men to satiate their lust and proof of scheming women complaining of sexual harassment after volunteering to being exploited, ideally should call for both these categories of men and women to be ostracised.

(2.) This writ petition involves an allegation of sexual harassment of a lowly paid lady railway employee by an officer of the South Eastern Railway, which ultimately has led to imposition of punishment on the railway officer. At the time of the alleged incident of sexual harassment, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereafter 'the 2013 Act', in short) was yet to see the light of the day. The landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 6 SCC 241, was there as the guiding light together with amendments in the relevant Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 following it. We are not called upon to decide here whether the allegation of sexual harassment is correct or not, but to ascertain in the exercise of our judicial review powers whether the railway officer was extended 'reasonable opportunity' within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India to defend the allegation. Also, should judicial interdiction be at all considered imperative, we need to decide the extent of relief that could be given to the parties in this proceeding to sub-serve the ends of justice.

(3.) The Union of India and 3 (three) officers of the South Eastern Railway are the petitioners before us in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the soundness of a judgment and order dated April 23, 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereafter 'the tribunal', for short) on OA 708 of 2013. By such judgment and order, the tribunal allowed the original application presented before it by the original applicant/railway officer (hereafter 'Mr. Sarkar', for short). The order dated August 27, 2010 imposing upon Mr. Sarkar the penalty of removal from service was set aside and the respondents before the tribunal were granted liberty to proceed in accordance with law upon placing Mr. Sarkar under suspension or by allowing him to resume his duty.