The Madhya Pradesh High Court Tuesday imposed Rs 5 lakh fine on the state for “inhumane and unsympathetic behaviour shown by the police officials” by delaying registration of workplace sexual harassment complaint by a woman who had accused the former vice-chancellor of a yoga institute in Gwalior.
Ruling in favour of the woman, the court further directed the former VC to compensate the woman with Rs 35 lakh for loss of salary and reputation, agony and emotional distress.
The petitioner, appointed as a yoga instructor at a physical education institute, alleged that she was sexually harassed by the former VC. She claimed that in March 2019, she was inappropriately touched by the then VC while she was heading for a class. She claimed that due to his high position she did not file a complaint.
In August 2019, the then VC allegedly summoned her over a leave-related complaint by the HOD and misused the situation to seek sexual favours. In October 2019, she submitted a complaint to the Department of Sports, detailing instances of mental and physical harassment and a hostile work environment by the VC. In response, the VC denied all allegations.
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke observed in his order that when a report of cognizable offence was made by the petitioner what was expected of police officials was to register the crime. However, it failed to do so.
“Thus, this Court finds that the inhumane and unsympathetic behaviour shown by the police officials makes them also liable for penalty. Accordingly, the State is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5 Lac to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of order of pronouncement, which shall be recovered from erring officials from their own pocket,” the court said.
The court reasoned that the police authorities are “responsible for not taking action in time on the complaint made by the petitioner and had waited for three long years to register a crime, that too upon directions of the apex court, which had added to the agony of the petitioner, thus, had also made liable to be penalised.”
Story continues below this ad
The court found that the petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment at her workplace and no steps were taken by the respondent institute in “timely extending justice to the petitioner, which had deprived her valuable time, energy & reputation”. The Institute had “let its administration be controlled by a person, who was not even fit to be kept in service of any nature”, the court said.
