RASHMI SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Apex Court, by its judgment in the case of Vishaka and Others vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others, 1997 AIR(SC) 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 10.9.2009 published in the Extraordinary Gazette dated 24.9.2009, constituted such a Committee at the State level. 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 15.7.2009, 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.

(2.) 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 24.4.2013, which was partially amended by an office order contained in Memo No. 2595 dated 4.6.2013, vide Annexure-B. Hence, the complaint filed by petitioner has been transferred by the State Level Committee to the Departmental Level Committee.

(3.) 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.