Action should be taken against those causing “severe mental pressure” to a women employees by passing “objectionable” remarks or using “vituperative” language, combined with expression of “highly rude and abusive” behaviour, while giving orders for any work at office, a Parliamentary penal has recommended.
The competent authorities should take cognizance of such complaints “very seriously”, even though they do not fall under the category of sexual harassment, suggested the Parliamentary Standing Committee in its report, which was tabled in Parliament last week. “The erring superior officer should be punished with appropriate penal action on priority basis, along with an adverse entry in his/her confidential report dossier,” it added.
The panel also expressed dissatisfaction over the action usually taken against those found guilty of sexually harassing women at the workplace. It recommended “strict” disciplinary action against such offenders, noting that merely transferring them to some other office was not “adequate redressal” to the grievances of victims.
At the same time, however, it advised that the authorities, while dealing with cases of sexual harassment, should remain careful against those women “who make false allegations”.
“The punishment has to be a deterrent for prospective offenders,” it stressed, expressing dissatisfaction over the action taken against persons found guilty of sexually harassing women employees in government departments and public-sector units. Though the panel favoured “strict disciplinary action” against the guilty, it did not clearly specify exactly what action should be taken against such persons so that it could turn out to be a deterrent for others in the office.
It only emphasised upon the “need to take strong action” under the disciplinary rules “in a time-bound manner”, in addition to transferring such delinquent employees.
The panel noted that in some government departments, the complaint committee which deals with the cases of sexual harassment of women employees at workplace did not have a third party as its member.
“The presence of a third party in the complaint committee is necessary in order to prevent the possibility of any pressure or influence on the proceedings,” it underlined, suggesting that such committees must have a third party as its member.
