A safe workplace is a woman’s legal right. It is pertinent to note that ironically, women police are among the most vulnerable to workplace harassment, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has observed.
Dismissing an anticipatory bail petition filed by a suspended Inspector of Police from Dindigul district, Veeragandhi, who has been accused of sending inappropriate messages to a woman constable, Justice K. Murali Shankar observed that cases of sexual harassment at work place had become rampant in India. Recently the Madras High Court was constrained to take suo motu action against a top police officer for the alleged sexual harassment of an IPS Officer, the court said.
The petitioner had appeared before the Vishaka Committee of the Police Department following allegations that he had sent inappropriate texts to a woman constable. He was transferred, and later suspended.
The court took note of the fact that the Vishaka Committee conducted an inquiry based on a complaint by the constable and concluded that the petitioner had caused sexual harassment to the woman. A case was registered against the petitioner under various Sections of the IPC. The committee had perused the texts that were sent to the constable by the Inspector.
The Judge said the woman constable had preferred a complaint against a superior officer of the police station where she was working. It was very unfortunate that the legacy of women being treated as secondary to men still continued. Sexual harassment had an adverse effect on the organisation or the work place as the working enthusiasm of the harassed female employee went down, and she was not able to work in the same way as she was before being harassed.
Sending inappropriate messages to a subordinate staff would definitely constitute sexual harassment in workplace, the Judge added.
Such a misconduct on the part of a superior officer could not be viewed lightly. Considering the seriousness and the gravity of the offence alleged and also the facts that the forensic report was yet to be received, the court was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, the court said and dismissed the petition.
