In a recent ruling regarding the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act (POSH Act), the Supreme Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the Border Security Force (BSF) for failing to provide the inquiry report to a complainant who had alleged sexual harassment. This failure violated Section 13(1) of the POSH Act, which mandates that the report be made available to "concerned parties."
The petitioner, a constable in the BSF, had complained of sexual harassment against one of her superiors. However, after the initial inquiry under the POSH Act failed to yield any conclusive findings, a second inquiry was conducted under the Border Security Force Act 1968. This inquiry resulted in the officer being punished with 89 days of rigorous imprisonment, forfeiture of five years of service for promotion purposes, and forfeiture of five years of service for pension purposes. While the complainant was dissatisfied with the punishment imposed, she raised a more pressing concern—the failure of the BSF to provide her with a copy of the inquiry report, which she argued violated her rights under Section 13(1) of the POSH Act.
Under Section 13(1) of the POSH Act, “On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within ten days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties.” The petitioner’s counsel argued that the BSF had violated this provision by withholding the inquiry report, which directly impacted her ability to understand the full outcome of the inquiry.
In its defence, the BSF claimed that the report was not provided to the petitioner because she was not an accused in the matter, and the inquiry had not found any substantial evidence against the officer involved. The BSF further argued that since no formal charges were established against the officer under the POSH Act, the report did not hold any material significance for the complainant.
However, the Supreme Court strongly rejected this defence, stating that the complainant, as the victim of the alleged harassment, undeniably fell under the category of “concerned parties” within the meaning of Section 13(1) of the POSH Act. The bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah firmly declared, “Inquiry Report ought to have been given to the victim as it is required to be given under Section 13 (1) to all the ‘concerned parties.’ Petitioner is a concerned party.”
The Court further emphasised that withholding the report constituted a clear violation of the statutory provisions, reinforcing the need for transparency in cases of sexual harassment in the workplace. “On the facts of this case where the Inquiry Report was not given to the petitioner, there has been a violation of Section 13 of the Act,” the Court observed. Given this violation, the Court directed that a penalty of Rs. 25,000 be imposed on the BSF, which was to be paid to the petitioner.
Importantly, the Court noted that the officer against whom the complaint had been filed had already been punished under the Border Security Force Act, and there was no further need for action regarding the punishment. As the Court remarked, “Punishment in any case has already been given to the concerned employee, which meets the ends of justice.”
However, the imposition of the penalty was a direct consequence of the BSF’s failure to provide the complainant with the inquiry report, a step that the Court viewed as essential to ensuring fairness in the handling of such sensitive matters.
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
