Supreme Court Imposes ₹25,000 Penalty On BSF For Non-Compliance With Sexual Harassment Act

The Supreme Court has imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the Border Security Force (BSF) for failing to provide an inquiry report to a female constable who had lodged a sexual harassment complaint against a senior officer.

The Bench of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah held that this omission violated Section 13(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, which mandates that the findings of an inquiry must be shared with all concerned parties, including complainants.

"On the facts of this case where the Inquiry Report was not been given to the petitioner, there has clearly been a violation of Section 13 of the Act. We therefore impose a penalty of Rs. 25,000/­ which will be given to the petitioner by the Border Security Force," the Court said.

AoR Prashant Kumar appeared for the petitioner, and ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee appeared for the Union of India.

The petitioner, a BSF constable, alleged that no action was taken on her complaint of sexual harassment, prompting her to file a writ petition before the court. In its counter-affidavit, the BSF stated that an initial inquiry under the Sexual Harassment Act did not find any evidence against the accused officer, who was subsequently discharged. However, following the approval of the Inspector General, a fresh inquiry was conducted under the Border Security Force Act, 1968. This inquiry resulted in the officer receiving three penalties: 89 days of rigorous imprisonment, forfeiture of five years of service for promotion, and forfeiture of five years of past service for pension purposes.

The Court noted that these punishments had already been implemented and the accused officer had not challenged them. However, the petitioner argued that the penalties were insufficient and should have been imposed under the Sexual Harassment Act. Additionally, she highlighted the BSF’s failure to provide her with a copy of the inquiry report, as required under Section 13(1) of the Act.

The BSF contended that the report was not shared with the petitioner because she was not an accused, and the inquiry had not found substantial evidence against the accused officer. The court rejected this reasoning, stating that the petitioner, as a victim, was undeniably a concerned party entitled to access the report.

While acknowledging the procedural lapse, the Court concluded that the penalties already imposed on the officer were sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Writ Petition was disposed of with the directive that the BSF pay Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner as compensation for the violation. Pending applications in the case were also disposed of.

"Apart from the above lapse, we are of the opinion that punishment in any case has already been given to the concerned employee, which meets the ends of justice. Nothing further needs to be done. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: Ms. X v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 284/2020]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Prashant Kumar (AOR), Anand Kumar Pandey

Respondent: ASG Vikramjeet Banerjee, Senior Advocate Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advocates Rukhmini Bobde, Swati Ghildiyal, Raghav Sharma, Ishaan Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Gurmeet Singh Makker (AOR), Durga Dutt, Raman Yadav, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, N. Visakamurthy (AOR), Amrish Kumar (AOR)

Click here to read/download the Order