NEW DELHI: A sexual harassment complaint by a faculty member of West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences against its vice chancellor (VC) could not be looked into because it was not lodged within the mandatory three-month period. However, Supreme Court on Friday ensured that the “offence” did not go unpunished by directing the VC to make the judgment, which recorded his alleged acts in detail, part of his resume.A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B Varale passed the peculiar order while dismissing the plea filed by the faculty member. The court noted that the last instance of alleged sexual harassment had taken in April 2023 but the “victim” lodged a formal complaint in Dec 2023 with the local complaint committee which rejected the complaint as ‘time barred’ since it was not only beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three months but also beyond the extendable period of limitation of six months.Section 9 of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act says that any aggrieved woman may make a complaint to LCC within a period of three months from the date of incident, and in the case of series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of the last incident. The second proviso to Section 9 provides that the LCC may for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time of making the complaint not exceeding three months.Noting that nothing could be done in the case, the bench, however, ensured that the alleged wrong acts are not forgotten. “It is advisable to forgive the wrongdoer, but not to forget the wrongdoing. The wrong which has been committed against the appellant (faculty member) may not be investigated on technical grounds, but it must not be forgotten. In this view of the matter, we direct that the incidents of alleged sexual harassment on part of respondent No. 1 (VC) may be forgiven but allowed to haunt the wrongdoer forever. Thus, it is directed that this judgment shall be made part of the resume of respondent No. 1, compliance of which shall be strictly ensured by him personally,” the court said in its order.The complainant had alleged that the VC repeatedly used to call her in his office and proposed to her to go out for dinner. She had told him that she was not comfortable and wanted to keep the relationship professional only but he went on demanding “sexual favour from her and threatened her if the offers were declined.”“A plain reading of the entire complaint would reveal that the sexual harassment, if any, of the appellant at the hands of respondent no. 1 commenced sometime in Sept 2019, and the last incident in that connection took place in April 2023. Thereafter, no incident of sexual harassment is alleged to have taken place except for the fact that on Aug 29, 2023, the appellant was removed from the post of director, Centre of Financial, Regulatory and Governance Studies (CFRGS) or that a preliminary inquiry was instituted against her by the executive council,” the court said while holding that subsequent actions of removing her as director could not be in any way linked to sexual harassment to make her plea within the time limitation.
