Moneylife: National: Saturday, July 15, 2017.
Sexual
harassment and crimes against women continue to dent our country’s image, but
what does one say when the National Women’s Commission’s itself is accused of
indifference to a woman staffer’s petition alleging sexual harassment by Deputy
Secretary VVB Raju? Worse, the accused is the designated the First Appellate
Authority under RTI (http://ncw.nic.in/frmRTI_Officers.aspx) and in a position
to stall information.
The matter
has been taken up by the Central Information Commission (CIC), which has issued
a show cause notice to the accused, following a second appeal by the
victim. The complainant, a research
assistant, was allegedly harassed by VVB Raju. The CIC has slammed the NCW for
its apathy and for ignoring the victim’s application. It has also recommended a
clean-up of NCW’s RTI wing to remove tainted officers from key positions and to
facilitate the inspection of files by the RTI applicant.
In 2016, the
victim submitted a complaint of sexual harassment to the Member Secretary of
NCW. Her complaint said: “for the last four months I have been going through
huge problems in the same work and the routine. Some four months back a new
Deputy Secretary has come to the Commission whose attitude and behaviour is
objectionable. Mr VVB Raju, who is the new DS, started harassing me ever since
he joined the Commission. He insists that I should come to him in person to get
his signatures and that too in the evening, only after 5:30pm. When I refused
to stay after 5:30pm for getting his signatures, then he threatened he would
complain to the Chairperson of the Commission and will throw me out of the
job”.
Her case was
addressed by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the National Women’s
Commission. However, the ICC’s report did not go to the Disciplinary Committee
for action. So, the victim filed a RTI application seeking file notings,
correspondence regarding extension (or non-extension) of contract of her employment,
inquiry report, statements of witnesses, action taken on report and so on.
She did not
receive any information but was given a letter by the Central Public
Information Officer (CPIO) to contact ‘higher-ups’. She made telephone calls in
response to instructions in that letter, but they were not answered. She then
filed First Appeal but was told that she cannot get information as it is `third
party information.’’ The victims says that she needs the documents to fight her
case before the various Authorities and the Competent Court. As there was no
response to her RTI application, emails, telephonic requests, first appeal,
visits to the NCW and other efforts, she filed a second appeal to the CIC.
Prof. M.
Sridhar Acharyulu, the central information commissioner who heard the case
observes: “…It is not known why NCW office was acting totally against the
rights of the appellant and there was not an iota of effort to address her
grievance or complaint or a problem and why the RTI wing of the NCW has totally
blocked access to information to the appellant. And, above all, the Member
Secretary is silent on her complaint.’’
He further
says, ``the submission of the appellant reflects unhealthy environment at
workplace in the forum, which is supposed to protect the rights of women. Her
right to life, right to work and right to information were seriously endangered
by sexual harassment by senior officer.’’
There was no
representative from NCW at the CIC hearing, which irritated the commissioner.
He says, the``non-response of National Commission for Women to two complaints
of sexual harassment within their organization, allowing an officer who was
accused of sexual harassment, to deal with the first appeal under RTI Act…If
this is the fate of a woman who is working as research assistant in National
Commission for Women, what will be the plight of ordinary women outside the
NCW?’’
The
commissioner has demanded an explanation from the NCW with regard to its breach
of two statutes on Sexual Harassment and Right to Information. The CIC has also
ordered that NCW should facilitate the following.
- Allow a file inspection of ``statements, inquiry report, action taken on that, and provide certified copies of the documents sought, free of cost, along with the files pertaining to increasing remuneration of ICC members,and witnesses. File notings of extension of contract of appellant including remarks of satisfactory work, along with the inquiry report and action taken report on that, free of cost
- He has asked the CPIO of NCW to give reason why he should not be slammed with maximum penalty
- The alleged accused and First Appellate Authority, VB Raju has been asked why disciplinary action should not be recommended against him for violating the law in dealing with first appeal under RTI Act. That he is the accused in the sexual harassment case points to a clear conflict of interest;
- The Member Secretary has been asked to explain why the NCW should not be ordered to pay compensation to the appellant for the harassment, and to explain his action/inaction on the complaint of the appellant.
- CIC has recommended to the chairperson of the NCW ``to save the credibility and reputation of NCW, within reasonable time and perform its duty to cleanse the RTI wing including the First Appellate Authority to make it objective and secure it from misconduct and breach by officers.’’
The
commissioner also observed that “members
in the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) were contractual staff of NCW. How
can it be expected from a contractual staff to go against the management? And
this Contractual Staff was later enormously rewarded by increasing their
remuneration two-fold without any adequate justification. The order increasing
remuneration states that the expenditure involved is to be charged under Plan
Head "Research Studies" whereas their work does not correlate to
"Research Study" in any manner whatsoever. Even the witnesses who
gave statements before ICC were also adequately compensated for their contribution,
by doubling the remuneration without any justification.’’
``The second
appeal clearly shows that she was further victimized because of her bold
complaint against sexual harassment of First Appellate Authority, by reducing
her term of contract and then by removing from her position.
``First her
contractual term of job was reduced, then not extended, along with two other
employees. Thereafter, these two employees were re-instated in the month of
April 2017, but appellant was left out. The sudden increase in remuneration of
contractual employees who were on inquiry committee as witnesses strengthen the
allegation of conspiracy to harass the appellant and strategic plan to remove
her.’’
``The NCW
should not have abdicated the good governance principles of responding to
complaint…’’
.JPG)
.JPG)
