Stating that allegations of sexual harassment at workplace was a “serious matter”, the Delhi High Court has said the Centre, being a “model employer“, should be vigilant in relation to appointment of a person facing such charges. The court’s observations came while dealing with a plea challenging an appointment to a directorial post in Union Bank of India in the face of a sexual harassment complaint against the person.
The court granted time to the authorities to file their response to the public interest litigation (PIL) by the complainant woman and said it expected the central government to take “remedial action” in the matter.
“If there is a POSH [Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act] case, we expect Union of India to be far more vigilant. Don’t ask us to say something which is unpalatable. You take remedial action to maintain dignity of office,” the court said.
It said POSH is a serious matter in today’s time. If charge is framed, it is a serious case, it added.
“As a model employer, you have to maintain dignity of office,” a bench headed by Chief Justice Manmohan orally told the Centre’s counsel.
The court further said a clear message has to go to the society that people occupying high posts are gender sensitive.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, said a PIL was not maintainable in the present case.
During the hearing, the court, however, questioned how clearance was given by the authorities in the matter and the appointee was considered as “eligible” when there were sexual harassment allegations.
“If someone is charge-sheeted in a POSH case, he can’t be director of a bank. How will he manage the institution? Will the ladies be safe in the institution?” the bench, also comprising Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, asked.
“We expect a remedial action by you (Centre) on your own as a model employer. We have to send a clear message that people occupying high positions are gender sensitive,” the court said.
The petitioner has alleged that the appointment in the present case was in violation of the rules mandating a vigilance clearance — which was denied to the appointee on account of a charge sheet against him in a sexual harassment case by her.
Prashant Bhushan, the petitioner’s counsel, advocate has argued that vigilance clearance was mandatory for board level appointment in public sector banks and as per the relevant rules, it cannot be granted if a person is charge-sheeted in a sexual harassment case.
The matter will be heard next in November.
