Delhi High Court
Pallavi Pandey vs Kendriya Bhandar on 6 August, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 4976/2013 & CM Nos.11237-38/13
% 6th August, 2013
PALLAVI PANDEY ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Bhupender Singh Chauhan, Adv.
VERSUS
KENDRIYA BHANDAR ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. D.K.Nag, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner took up internship with the respondent w.e.f 16.4.2012 for
eight weeks. Petitioner pleads that during the period of internship one Mr.
Yudhvir Singh (Junior Salesman) caused her sexual harassment and details
of which are given in the writ petition. Petitioner was hence forced to lodge
an FIR. Evidence in the said criminal case is going on.
2. Petitioner also lodged a complaint with the respondent. Respondent
had initiated departmental enquiry against Mr. Yudhvir Singh and which
was as per the direction of the Delhi State Commission for Women. The
WPC 4976/2013 Page 1 of 5
petitioner questions certain orders which have been passed by the
departmental enquiry committee and seeks to quash them in these
proceedings. On behalf of the petitioner, following submissions are made
and reliefs accordingly claimed:-
(i) In a case such as the present it is necessary that the petitioner who is a
complainant be associated with every date of hearing in the departmental
enquiry because the Presiding Officer cannot thoroughly and in details
know the personal details of the sexual harassment and therefore presence of
the petitioner is necessary for effective conduct of the departmental enquiry.
(ii) Petitioner also seeks right to get copies of all proceedings in the
enquiry proceedings. She also seeks all the depositions of witnesses besides
the documents and pleadings which are filed by both the sides.
(iii) Petitioner seeks to be represented by a representative of her choice
and preferably a lawyer.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent on being put the aforesaid issues
raised by the petitioner, could not seriously dispute that in cases of sexual
harassment such as the present, the Presiding Officer would necessarily will
have to have assistance, guidance and help from the petitioner, because
WPC 4976/2013 Page 2 of 5
factual issues of sexual harassment will necessarily be known in detail only
by the petitioner personally. Also, counsel for the petitioner is justified in
arguing that effective dealing of the complaint of the petitioner can only be
if the petitioner receives the depositions, documents and the copies of
pleadings and is also allowed to be accompanied by a representative.
4. The law with respect to conduct of enquiries with respect to sexual
harassment is now well settled and guidelines were laid down by the
Supreme Court in Vishaka and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors AIR
1997 Supreme Court 3011.
5. It could not be disputed that respondent has to adopt guidelines with
respect to enquiries in sexual harassment as laid down by the Supreme Court
in the case of Vishaka (supra)
6. I may at this stage put on record that learned counsel for the
respondent has stated that in the peculiar facts of this case respondent,
without prejudice to its rights, is not questioning the maintainability of the
writ petition, however actually the respondent is not an instrumentality of
State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ
petitioner would not be maintainable. I agree and the present writ petition is
decided in the peculiar facts of this case without in any manner of the
WPC 4976/2013 Page 3 of 5
respondent being held as an instrumentality of State. I may state that every
High Court is fully entitled under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
an appropriate case to issue directions even against private persons, and
which in my opinion are required especially in cases of sexual harassment.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of with
the following directions:-
(i) The Committee constituted by the respondent which is enquiring into
the complaint of sexual harassment made by the petitioner against Mr.
Yudhvir Singh will allow the petitioner to be present in all the departmental
proceedings including causing her appearance on the dates of hearings
which are fixed.
(ii) Petitioner will be given copies of all pleadings, proceedings,
depositions of witnesses and ordersheets of departmental proceedings.
(iii) Petitioner will be entitled to assist the Presiding Officer with respect
to her complaint and therefore proceedings accordingly can be conducted by
the departmental committee on sexual harassment.
(iv) Considering the sensitivity of the situation and the mental and
emotional condition of the petitioner, the petitioner will be entitled to be
WPC 4976/2013 Page 4 of 5
accompanied by her representative in the departmental proceedings,
however the representative will not be an Advocate.
(v) In case any proceedings have taken place prior to passing of
today's order and the petitioner/complainant feels that the petitioner needs to
file certain documents or examine any further witness or cross-examine the
witness whose depositions have already been recorded, then petitioner will
be entitled to do so and for which purpose, dates of hearings would be fixed
by the departmental enquiry committee.
8. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
directions. Costs easy.
AUGUST 06, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
