Posts
Suspension before inquiry in sexual harassment case?
A government employee, facing allegations of sexual harassment at workplace, may be suspended even before filing of the charge-sheet if his continuance in office is likely to prejudice the investigations or leads to a scandal, compromising wider public interest.
A DoPT note issued on Thursday outlining the steps for conduct of inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment in government departments, also provides for initiation of action without inquiry where the charged government servant threatens or intimidates witnesses, disciplinary authority or members of the complaints committee. Such circumstances may exist either before commencement of the inquiry or develop during the course of the inquiry.
As per the procedure prescribed for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment, a government employee may be placed under suspension before or after filing of the charge-sheet where there is apprehension that he may tamper with witnesses or evidence (documents). "Suspension may also be resorted to where continuance of the government servant in office will be against wider public interest such as there is a public scandal and it is necessary to place the government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals," states the DoPT order.
"It may be desirable to resort to suspension in case of misdemeanor involving acts of moral turpitude," it adds.
As per Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, every employer, both in the public and private sector, must set up a sexual harassment complaints committee to inquire into such acts reported at workplace. The law provides for transfer of the victim or accused to a different workplace, pending the inquiry, but an accused government employee may also face suspension ahead of being charge-sheeted, if the disciplinary authority deems his continuation as prejudicial to the inquiry or against public interest.
Acting tough on an accused who, through or with his associates, tries to intimidate or terrorise witnesses likely to testify against him, the norms empower the disciplinary authority to suspend the inquiry and take action against him without such inquiry. The circumstances leading the disciplinary authority to conclude that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry include threatening, intimidation or terrorizing of the disciplinary authority, members of the complaints committee, the presenting officer or members of their family.
At the same time, the DoPT has clarified that the "disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with the inquiry lightly, arbitrarily or with ulterior motive or merely because the case against the government servant is weak".
To guard against bias on part of the complaints committee during an inquiry, the DoPT norms provide for a stay on the inquiry until the disciplinary authority takes a decision on allegations of bias received. If allegations of bias are established against one member of the panel, the committee may not be allowed to conduct the inquiry.
The committee, in its recommendations on whether a prima facie case is made for conducting a formal inquiry, "should avoid making any judgmental recommendations or expressing views which may be construed to have prejudiced their views while conducting the enquiry," according to the guidelines.
A DoPT note issued on Thursday outlining the steps for conduct of inquiry into complaints of sexual harassment in government departments, also provides for initiation of action without inquiry where the charged government servant threatens or intimidates witnesses, disciplinary authority or members of the complaints committee. Such circumstances may exist either before commencement of the inquiry or develop during the course of the inquiry.
As per the procedure prescribed for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment, a government employee may be placed under suspension before or after filing of the charge-sheet where there is apprehension that he may tamper with witnesses or evidence (documents). "Suspension may also be resorted to where continuance of the government servant in office will be against wider public interest such as there is a public scandal and it is necessary to place the government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals," states the DoPT order.
"It may be desirable to resort to suspension in case of misdemeanor involving acts of moral turpitude," it adds.
As per Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, every employer, both in the public and private sector, must set up a sexual harassment complaints committee to inquire into such acts reported at workplace. The law provides for transfer of the victim or accused to a different workplace, pending the inquiry, but an accused government employee may also face suspension ahead of being charge-sheeted, if the disciplinary authority deems his continuation as prejudicial to the inquiry or against public interest.
Acting tough on an accused who, through or with his associates, tries to intimidate or terrorise witnesses likely to testify against him, the norms empower the disciplinary authority to suspend the inquiry and take action against him without such inquiry. The circumstances leading the disciplinary authority to conclude that it is not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry include threatening, intimidation or terrorizing of the disciplinary authority, members of the complaints committee, the presenting officer or members of their family.
At the same time, the DoPT has clarified that the "disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with the inquiry lightly, arbitrarily or with ulterior motive or merely because the case against the government servant is weak".
To guard against bias on part of the complaints committee during an inquiry, the DoPT norms provide for a stay on the inquiry until the disciplinary authority takes a decision on allegations of bias received. If allegations of bias are established against one member of the panel, the committee may not be allowed to conduct the inquiry.
The committee, in its recommendations on whether a prima facie case is made for conducting a formal inquiry, "should avoid making any judgmental recommendations or expressing views which may be construed to have prejudiced their views while conducting the enquiry," according to the guidelines.
Source:-The Times of India
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment