Introduction:

The Supreme Court recently imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Border Security Force (BSF) for failing to provide a copy of the inquiry report to a constable who had complained of sexual harassment, thus violating provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The bench, comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, addressed this issue in the case of Ms X v. Union of India & Ors. The complainant, a BSF constable, had filed a complaint under the POSH Act against a senior officer within the force. The case revolves around the procedural lapses that occurred after the inquiry was conducted, particularly the failure to provide the complainant with a copy of the inquiry report, which led to the imposition of the fine on BSF.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The petitioner, a constable in the BSF, had filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court after the BSF failed to take any action in response to her sexual harassment complaint. She argued that not only was the punishment under the POSH Act necessary, but also that she had not been provided with a copy of the inquiry report, which is mandated by Section 13(1) of the POSH Act. Section 13(1) states that after the completion of an inquiry, the Internal Committee or Local Committee must provide a report of its findings to the employer or district officer within ten days. Furthermore, the report must be made available to the “concerned parties,” which the petitioner contended included her as the complainant.

The BSF, on the other hand, defended its actions, asserting that the report was not provided to the petitioner because she was not an accused party and the inquiry had not found any substantial evidence against the accused officer. BSF also claimed that the matter was dealt with under the BSF Act, 1968, and the officer involved had already faced significant punishment, including imprisonment and loss of service benefits.

However, the BSF’s defence was rejected by the Court, which emphasized the importance of following the procedural mandates of the POSH Act, especially in ensuring that the complainant, as a “concerned party,” receives the necessary information about the inquiry’s findings.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court observed that the complainant, as the victim of the alleged sexual harassment, fell under the definition of “concerned parties” under Section 13(1) of the POSH Act. Despite the BSF’s argument that the report did not contain material findings against the accused officer, the Court noted that the failure to provide the report constituted a clear violation of the law. The Court emphasized that the POSH Act requires the report to be shared with all concerned parties, which includes the complainant.

The bench stated, “We are of the view that Inquiry Report ought to have been given to the victim as it is required to be given under Section 13 (1) to all the ‘concerned parties’. Petitioner is a concerned party.” Since the failure to provide the report was an admitted fact, the Court imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the BSF, to be paid to the petitioner as compensation for the violation.

While the Court acknowledged that the accused officer had already faced appropriate disciplinary action under the BSF Act, including imprisonment and forfeiture of service benefits, the Court found that the procedural violation needed to be addressed separately. As a result, the Court issued a penalty against the BSF, but it did not direct any further action regarding the officer’s punishment, as that had already been dealt with adequately.

The writ petition was disposed of with the imposition of the penalty, ensuring that the procedural requirements under the POSH Act were respected moving forward. The Court also noted that the matter would serve as a reminder for organizations, including government agencies like the BSF, to strictly adhere to the provisions of the POSH Act, ensuring that the rights of complainants are not overlooked.