Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Workplace Safety

Judgement Given On : 25/10/2021

Background

In the case of Dr. Savitri Tripathi vs. State of Chhattisgarh, Dr. Savitri Tripathi, a Senior Professor of English at Government J.P. Verma P.G. Arts and Commerce College in Bilaspur, filed a petition alleging instances of sexual harassment by an Assistant Professor in English from Government College in Akaltara. These distressing incidents unfolded as follows:

  1. On September 26 and 27, 2012, the Assistant Professor visited Government J.P. Verma P.G. Arts and Commerce College, Bilaspur, and subjected Dr. Tripathi to the use of obscene language.
  2. On October 5, 2012, following a meeting with B.L. Goyal, a Retired Principal of J.P. Verma College, the Assistant Professor taunted Dr. Tripathi and directed her to enter the English and Hindi Department. Refusing to comply, Dr. Tripathi suggested discussing the matter in the Principal’s Chamber. The Assistant Professor claimed immunity due to his belonging to a reserved category.
  3. On October 12, 2012, during office hours, the Assistant Professor intruded into the Hindi and English Department and verbally assaulted Dr. Tripathi with vulgar language, a grave offense tantamount to outraging her modesty. This incident occurred in the presence of fellow professors, who objected to his behavior.

In response to these indecent and distressing incidents, Dr. Tripathi immediately informed the authorities. On October 13, 2012, she formally lodged a written complaint with the Principal of Government J.P. Verma P.G. Arts and Commerce College. To further emphasize the gravity of her situation, reminder letters were dispatched on December 19, 2012, and December 29, 2012. Copies of these reminders were also sent to higher education authorities.

Dr. Tripathi earnestly implored her superiors to forward her complaint to the police for the filing of a First Information Report (FIR), in accordance with service rules. Regrettably, the authorities failed to act on her request. One of their contentions was that the Assistant Professor was employed in a different college, thus disputing the applicability of the same employer’s jurisdiction.

The High Court made several crucial determinations:

  1. Same Employer:
    • The court unequivocally affirmed that both Dr. Tripathi and respondent No. 5 (the Assistant Professor) were government employees and thus shared the same employer. The contention that they were employed in different colleges was promptly dismissed.
  2. Failure to Forward Complaint:
    • The government authorities were censured for their dereliction of duty in neglecting to forward Dr. Tripathi’s complaint to the police.
  3. Definition of Workplace:
    • The argument posited by the authorities, contending that the alleged act did not transpire at the Assistant Professor’s workplace and, therefore, did not constitute sexual harassment, was categorically rebuffed. The High Court asserted that the location could indeed be considered a workplace under Section 2(o) of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act, 2013.
  4. Directives to Authorities:
    • The High Court issued explicit directives to the Secretary/Director or their authorized representatives from Higher Education and the Principal of the college where Dr. Tripathi was posted. They were instructed to initiate proceedings against respondent No. 5, culminating in the registration of an FIR based on Dr. Tripathi’s complaint and the findings of the fact-finding committee. These directives were to be executed within two months of receiving a copy of the court’s order.
  5. No Opinion on Merits:
    • The court judiciously clarified that it had refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The subsequent registration of the FIR would lead to an impartial investigation by the relevant authorities, in strict accordance with the procedures outlined in the Criminal Procedure Code.

In summary, the High Court ruled resolutely in favor of Dr. Tripathi, underscoring the obligations of the authorities to take decisive action against sexual harassment in the workplace, irrespective of the specific location of the incidents. The court also emphasized the pivotal relevance of both the petitioner and the accused sharing the same employer.