Srinagar, Dec 23: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh Friday upheld the clean chit to former Director of Health Services, Kashmir, Dr Samir Mattoo given by Complaints Committee for alleged sexual harassment charges levelled against him by a consultant lady doctor working in the department in 2020.
Dismissing a plea by lady doctor challenging the enquiry report of the Committee, Justice Sanjay Dhar upheld the enquiry report of Complaints Committee under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 wherein it was recorded that the entire case as well as the testimonies of the witnesses and charges levelled against Dr Mattoo have not been proven.
The petitioner, who at the time of incident was working as Consultant MCH in the Directorate of Health Services, Kashmir, had also challenged the constitution if Complaints Committee under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013 for enquiring into the complaints of sexual harassment against women employees of the Health & Medical Education Department and its subordinate offices.
The petitioner had alleged that Dr. Mattoo had conveyed certain “sexually coloured remarks” to her and his behaviour was highly “distasteful and unwelcome.”
She had further alleged that Mattoo continued to harass her in one way or the other. She had filed a complaint in the Lieutenant Governor’s office against Mattoo after which the administration formed the committee for the probe.
The court ruled that a person who participates in the enquiry proceedings or selection without any demur and later on challenges the constitution of the enquiry committee or the selection committee, as the case may be, after finding that the result of the enquiry or selection has gone against him, is not entitled to do so.
The bench underscored that by participating in the enquiry proceedings without any demur, the lady doctor has acquiesced in the constitution of the complaints committee and she has at no stage lodged any protest either regarding functioning of the committee or regarding its constitution.
“She cannot be heard to challenge the constitution of the committee once the result went against her,” the bench said.
The court pointed out that there is not even a whisper made in the writ petition that the petitioner had felt uncomfortable in participating in the proceedings or she had raised any objection with regard to the constitution of the committee.
Justice Dhar recorded that she cannot be heard to question the constitution of the complaints committee at this stage when the result of the enquiry has gone against her, particularly when the enquiry proceedings have been conducted after observing the principles of natural justice and the findings of the committee are based upon the material produced before it.
“For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.” Justice Dhar said.
