The Hans India: New Delhi: Tuesday, August 01, 2017.
However, it
is pathetic that the National Commission for Woman (NCW) did not give any
information so requested. There are international covenants declaring that
sexual harassment at work place denies right to life and liberty. This was
approved by our Supreme Court and, in fact, the judicial legislation on sexual
harassment provided relief to lakhs of women until Parliament found time and
made the law recently.
Free and
healthy atmosphere at work place is a requirement. If the working woman finds
it impossible to work because of superior or colleague’s harassment with sexual
orientation, she may have to quit the job for peace of mind and security of
body.
The sexual
harassment creates a hazard for most of the fundamental rights of woman,
ranging from right to life to right to work and liberty. Certain commissions are created by the
Constitution and the Parliamentary laws, giving them supervisory power over
mechanism of securing the human rights for downtrodden, backward and women who
are victims of inequalities practised by those in powerful positions.
If police
does not register a case or act upon, the complainants can approach the
commission and ask it to goad the authority to act. One such body is the
National Commission for Women constituted under an Act of 1990. There have to
be such bodies both at the Centre and in States.
The RTI
applicant, an alleged victim of sexual harassment, had sought file-notings,
correspondence regarding extension (or non-extension) of contract of her
employment, inquiry report instituted against one Raju, statements of
witnesses, action taken on report, amongst the 16 points of information. As per
Section 7 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO was to give the requested
information within 48 hours of the application. However, no information was
received, nor was it given even after 30 days, under Section 6 of the RTI Act.
In an
emotional appeal, she said that ever since VVB Raju assumed office of Deputy
Secretary and FAA at NCW he had been harassing her. She alleged that: Raju used
to instruct her to obtain his signatures on the files personally, used to keep
the files pending until she personally comes; when she brings the files, she
would be asked to wait for a long time beyond the office hours; She represented
this matter to chairperson and other officers including her immediate boss, but
they advised her to take files to him; her reporting officer also directed her
to go to Raju personally with the files.
When she did
not do so, Raju started spoiling her unblemished career, and attempted to build
a file during re-issuance of term of contractual employment as research
associate; her salary was reduced from Rs 10,000 to Rs 8,000 per month. Three
research associates (including herself) were not re-issued with the contract
and later he issued appointment contracts to two others, thereby removing her on
pretext of some complaints, though no such complaints were filed.
As Raju
enjoyed complete support from chairperson and others, he was emboldened to
continue sexual harassment; there was no action at all on her complaint, her
colleague-witnesses were at the mercy of Raju and other officers for extension
of their employment contracts and hence could not fearlessly talk about truth
of sexual harassment during inquiry; everybody knew about his conduct, but none
dared give witness against him. Rakesh Rani, a research assistant, spoke about
truth of his misconduct, and she is now being harassed.
Other
witnesses told her that they cannot risk their jobs and increments; the public
authority suppressed the information sought deliberately. Raju prevented the
CPIO from giving information. He Raju prevented even the first appellate
authority from hearing the appeal. The chairperson was giving all support to
Raju but no empathy towards the victim.
The
chairperson did not consider her personal representation at all. The
Chairperson withheld the key files from her to deny her access under RTI. She
instructed the office people not to speak to the complainant, because of which
none was communicating with her till she was thrown out.
In spite of
CIC order to provide the documents for inspection, Raju continued to wield
influence to prevent supply of information and other files to her. Only after
the intervention of CIC, inspection was allowed and the office claimed that a
bundle of 950 plus pages was dispatched to appellant, which is yet to be
delivered.
The victim
was visibly upset at the presence of Raju during the hearing. None, including
her brother and counsel, could console her, when she was narrating the
sufferings as tears rolled down. She went on giving details of harassment –
sexual and work-related, for more than a year.
Raju
maintained stoic silence all through without even attempting to condemn,
whereas the CPIO Nagarajan defended himself saying he disclosed information as
available. This silence also could be a reflection, which could be interpreted.
If the allegation is concocted and totally untrue, any accused will certainly
react and make an attempt to explain. Raju made no such attempt.
The officers
defended Raju by saying that appellant filed sexual harassment complaint
because her services were not continued. Within minutes, the truth was out when
the Commission inquired into dates. Files disclosed that the Internal
Complaints Committee heard the complaint of sexual harassment and gave report
on 11.5.2016, and she was discontinued in November 2016.
She filed RTI
application on 21.12.2016. It was
alleged that the inquiry was a sham, as most of the witnesses could not open
their mouth against Raju as they are all at his mercy for extension of their contractual
appointment. There was one employee who stood by truth but is being victimised
by the administration for it.
As long as
the contractual employment continues as a valid system of recruitment, there is
no possibility to bring out truth in any inquiry, more so in sexual harassment
complaints, especially when entire administration supports the accused. It appears the NCW has not only failed as a
responsible employer at first instance in responding to her complaint and RTI
request, but also as the Commission, a statutory authority to hear the case of
a woman in their own office.
The
complainant said that in response to the order of CIC, all files required were
not shown to her. Her service file, Raju’s papers about his appointment,
extension of service etc were not shown to her. Some of the files were
incomplete while most of them are in a highly disorderly manner, without having
serial numbers.
Some files
were not properly arranged; the two inquiries were mixed up and it requires a
lot of time to find out the papers in order and understand; they do not know
why the two inquiries into sexual harassment complaints were mixed up. She said
that the file of appointment and extension of VVB Raju, Deputy Secretary and
First Appellate Authority under RTI Act, who is also accused in complaint of
sexual harassment by the appellant, was not shown to her, on the excuse that
the file was under process with Chairperson.
The CIC
called for explanation of the Chairperson of NCW for withholding the file about
Raju and directed the NCW to show all the files and give the papers asked for.
The Commission sought Vandana Gupta, the First Appellate Authority, to
show-cause why disciplinary action should not be recommended against her for
not conducting the first appeal in a fair manner.
CIC has
slapped a penalty of Rs 25,000 each on three officers at the National
Commission for Women (NCW) and asked it to pay a compensation of Rs 50,000 to
the appellant for not providing information under the Right to Information
(RTI) Act and for failing to take action against erring officials. The CIC also ordered NCW to provide Rs 50,000
as compensation to the victim. (Based on CIC decision in second appeal against
National Commission for Woman, CIC/NCFWO/A/2017/135800, on 26.7.2017)
.JPG)
.JPG)
