A former Coast Guard Deputy Commandant filed a writ petition, alleging sexual harassment by her Commanding Officer, but it was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court in a recent ruling.
The petitioner, who retired from the Coast Guard on December 25, 2021, claimed that the Commanding Officer had harassed her sexually while she was stationed at Haldia during the relevant period.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, while delivering the judgment, stated, “The petitioner joined as a trainee officer of the Coast Guard as Assistant Commandant. She was employed as a Deputy Commandant of the Coast Guard, Mumbai and subsequently retired from her services on December 25, 2021. She was posted in 88 ACV Squadron, Haldia during the relevant point of time when the subject incidents allegedly took place.”
The petitioner’s complaint was investigated by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), which dismissed the complaint on all counts. Unsatisfied with the decision, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition.
During the proceedings, Mr. Pramit Bag and Ms. Amani Kayan appeared for the petitioner, while Mr. Dhiraj Trivedi and Mr. Arunava Ganguly represented the Union of India. On the other hand, Mr. Arjun Ray Mukherjee and Ms. Sarada Sha represented respondent no.7.
Addressing the objections raised by the respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, Justice Bhattacharyya remarked, “At the outset, the respondents raise an objection as to maintainability of the writ petition since a previous writ petition preferring the same challenge was dismissed for default.”
He added, “Dealing with the said objection, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the previous petition was restored at the instance of the petitioner and was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution.”
The judgment referred to legal precedents such as Tata Cellular-Versus-Union of India and Ors. (AIR 1996 SC 11) and Puran Singh and others -Versus- State of Punjab and others ((1996) 2 SCC 205) stating, “The maintainability of the present writ petition was left open by the coordinate Bench restoring the previous writ petition to be decided by this Court. Moreover, there was no decision arrived at on merits in the previous writ petition.”
Regarding the allegations of sexual harassment, the petitioner claimed that the respondent no. 7 harassed her in several ways, including inappropriate staring, attempts to peep into her room, blocking her view while operating a craft, and addressing her inappropriately as “baby” and “sweety.”
Justice Bhattacharyya noted, “Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent no. 7 harassed the petitioner in several ways. The respondent no. 7 used to stare at the petitioner inappropriately and tried to peep into her room. At one instance, when the petitioner was operating a craft from the pilot’s seat, the respondent no. 7, who was the co-pilot, blocked an instrument called the Inclinometer from the petitioner’s sight.”
He further added, “Another component of the alleged harassment was that the respondent no. 7 addressed the petitioner inappropriately as ‘baby’ and ‘sweety’. When confronted by the petitioner, the respondent no. 7 admittedly did not repeat the same. However, it is submitted that there were sexual overtones in the said utterances.”
The judgment also addressed the issue of maintainability and the legal framework for adjudicating writ petitions. Justice Bhattacharyya explained, “Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in terms to a writ petition. As held by the Supreme Court in Puran Singh (supra), Section 141 of the Code, in its Explanation, clearly excludes writ petitions from the purview of the said Section, which enables other procedural provisions to apply to miscellaneous proceedings.”
He further elaborated, “However, the Writ Rules of this Court provide that where there is no specific provision, the principles embodied in the Code may be imported. We have to take note of the fact that the bar under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code is based on principles of equity, to ensure that a person cannot be vexed twice on the self-same cause of action.”
Referring to the evidence presented by both parties, Justice Bhattacharyya observed, “The petitioner, in order to vindicate her complaint, has alleged that a charge-sheet has been filed against the respondent no. 7. However, it is well-settled that in Indian Criminal Jurisprudence, an accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. Mere filing of a charge-sheet, that too on the complaint of the petitioner herself, is not conclusive evidence of her allegations at all.”
Finally, after considering all the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the Court dismissed the writ petition. “Accordingly, WPA No. 26677 of 2023 is dismissed on contest, confirming the impugned decision of the ICC absolving respondent no. 7 of the allegations of sexual harassment made against him by the writ petitioner, “Justice Bhattacharyya concluded.
The judgment also highlighted the need for judicial restraint in interfering with administrative decisions unless there is evidence of illegality, arbitrariness, or bias. It also emphasized the importance of protecting the accused from unfair prejudice in sensitive cases like sexual harassment.
The Court clarified that its decision did not impede any criminal trial that might be initiated against the respondent no. 7 based on the charge-sheet filed against him.
Case Name: XXX Vs Gender Sensitization and Internal Complaint Committee & Ors.
Case No.: WPA No. 26677 of 2023
Bench: Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Order Dated: 24.4.2024
To get free legal advice: click here
For more legal updates visit our Youtube channel: click here
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
