Tag Archives: Vishakha Guidelines

PMO

RTI BEL Regarding Sexual Harassment Cases

Leave a comment

To                                           20-07-2019

Mr. Udaya Shankara K S AGM (Marketing), Bharat Electronics Limited Corporate Office, Outer Ring Road, Nagavara, Bangalore – 560 045

Hello,
Kindly provide me with the following information requested under the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect  news published in Amar Ujala 24 February 2019 news clip enclosed.

  1. Provide the number of sexual harassment complaints received by Bharat Electronics Limited, Ghaziabad in last three years from 2017 to till date.
  2. Provide the number of sexual harassment case where Bharat Electronics Limited taken any action.
  3. Provide the details of action taken by BEL, Management.
  4. Whether complaint of sexual harassment were followed by Vishakha Guidelines Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Yes or No
  5. If yes then provide the copy of constitution of inquiry committee. As per Vishakha Guidelines the Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its member should be women. Further, to prevent the possibility of any undue pressure or influence from senior levels, such Complaints Committee should involve a third party, either NGO or other body who is familiar with the issue of sexual harassment.
  6. The disciplinary action taken against by BEL management against accused by BEL Management in sexual harassment complaints cases in BEL, Ghaziabad Unit.
  7. Provide the status of complainant of enclosed news paper published incident whether complainant still working or left the organization.
  8. If left then reason of resignation from service and date of resignation.
  9.  Provide whether inquiry committee found any truth in sexual harassment  complaint which mention in published incident in Amar Ujala 24 February 2019
  10. If yes than provide the details of penalty recommended by inquiry committee to accuse.
  11. Whether penalty recommended by inquiry committee to accuse were as per Vishakha Guidelines Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 Yes or No

Regards

Prabhu  Dandriyal,
21-Sunderwala, Raipur, DehradunPhone 0135- 2787750, Mobile- 9411114879, prabhudoon@gmail.com    www.corruptionindrdo.com

Enclosed -Copy of news clip published in Amar Ujala 24 February 2019

       Registration Number              BELBL/R/2019/50099

News Clip published in Amar Ujala 24 February 2019
Drdo

DRDO Chief is serious to handle sexual harassment cases

5 Comments

DRDO Chief Dr. Selvin Christopher dealing sexual harassment case in good spirit but the mindsets of senior officials not ready to co-op him for change of existing rotten handling process of DRDO. The getting justice in sexual harassment case is near to impossible in DRDO women scientist and employees.

There are number of example exists where DRDO management failed to deliver justice and always successes to buried the complaints.

The DRDO workforce of more than 30000 and nearly 20% women are working different level top to bottom, even in good positions like DG, Directors etc but harassment complaints are reaching to national women commission, national schedule cast commission etc is the clear evidence the failure of dealing these incidents by existing system of DRDO inspite of having good number of women official.

The reason is also very crystal clear the top existing women officials are not competent and got their position not on the basis of merit. That is the reason like so called famous scientist not able to give justice to victimized SRF.

In this darkness suddenly DRDO Chief Dr. Selvin Christopher sends direction to IRDE and ITM to deal these sexual harassment cases in seriously as per rule.

But unfortunately both the labs not taking it seriously the following enclose letter is showing the mindset of senior official of IRDE, who are openly violating the VISHAKHA guidelines of Honorable Supreme Court.

In following letter is clear example that how accused is trying to hostile the witness with putting through Director and the letter is trying to perusing through divisional head to witness.

The DRDO Hq directed to Director IRDE to take appropriate action against Admin Officer who gave false evidence in support of accused officer but till date Director IRDE not dare to take any action.

In ITM accused is enjoying his post/position after getting charge sheet. Here interesting fact of DRDO working that during the period three director handle the file, Mr M Kishor, Dr R S Pundir, as additional Charge and Sh Sanjay Tandon but no one able to shift the accuse from post of admin officer. As per rule everyone knows that what action is required after issuing such serious charge sheet.

The best part of Director’s order is the inquiry should be done as per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th, 2015 but they forgot the following the rules or just giving privilege to accused to harass and manage the witness as he is holding all executive powers of ITM.

 

As per DOPT F. No. 11013/2/2014-Estt (A-II1) Dated July 16th, 2015

Suspension

  1. A Government servant may also be placed under suspension before or after issue of a Charge Sheet where his continuance in office will prejudice the investigation, for example if there is an apprehension that he may tamper with witnesses or documents. Suspension may also be resorted to where continuance of the Government servant in office will be against wider public interest such as there is a public scandal and it is necessary to place the Government servant under suspension to demonstrate the policy of the Government to deal strictly with officers involved in such scandals. It may be desirable to resort to suspension in case of misdemeanor involving acts of moral turpitude.

Special provisions to deal with threats or intimidation

  1. Disciplinary Authority may also dispense with inquiry under Rule I 9(ii), and action may be taken without the inquiry when the Disciplinary Authority concludes that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry. The circumstances leading to such a conclusion may exist either before the inquiry is commenced or may develop in the course of the inquiry. Such situation would be deemed to have arisen:

(i) where the Government servant, through or together with his associates terrorizes, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or

(I) where the Government servant himself or with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorizes the Disciplinary Authority, Members of the Committee, the Presenting Officer or members of their family.

It is requested DRDO officials please go through the Vishakha Guidelines were a set of procedural guidelines for use in India in cases of sexual harassment. They were promulgated by the Indian Supreme Court in 1997 and were superseded in 2013 by The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Drdo

Top DRDO Scientist Accused of Sexual Harassment – The New Indian Express

13 Comments

Author: Pradip R Sagar

Published Date: Mar 8, 2015 6:00 AM

Last Updated: Mar 8, 2015 5:10 AM

A 25­ years­ old Junior Research Fellow has filed a complaint against D Majumdar, additional director of DIPAS, of making sexual advances.

NEW DELHI: After well­ known environmental scientist Dr R K Pachauri faces allegations of sexual harassment by his junior woman colleague, a senior scientist of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO),the country’s premier defence research body, too is facing similar charges by a junior researcher.

A 25 ­year ­old Junior Research Fellow has accused 59­ year­ old Dr D Majumdar, the additional director of the DRDO’s Delhi ­based Defence Institute of Physiology and Allied Sciences (DIPAS), of sexually harassing her. Taking cognizance of the woman’s complaint, Majumdar has been shunted out in ‘public interest’ following the recommendations of a high ­level committee, which was set up by the DRDO, to look into the allegations

According to official sources, the woman, who joined DIPAS in December last year, filed a complaint with the head of the organisation in February. In her complaint to Dr Shashi Bala Singh, Director, DIPAS, the woman accused Majumdar of making sexual advances towards her and she also sought her transfer from the particular group of Ergonomics. The woman alleged that Majumdar used to sexually harass her on his office premises. Over 40 other fellow researchers also came in support of the woman complainant and gave their representation against Majumdar. Subsequently her complaint was forwarded to the DRDO headquarters and a five­ member committee headed by Hina Gokhale, Director HRD of the DRDO, was formed to look into the allegations, as per the Vishakha Guidelines formulated by the Supreme Court.

Majumdar, who is retiring by the end of 2015, has been transferred to a Gwalior ­based laboratory where he has been directed to report by March 16. When contacted, Majumdar defended himself and said that the allegation was a conspiracy. “I completely denied such allegations and it is a conspiracy to defame me. Surprisingly, hours after appearing before the committee on March 3, I received my transfer orders from the headquarters,” said Majumdar, Scientist G of the DRDO, which is equivalent to a Joint Secretary ­rank officer. While deposing before the committee, he reportedly handed over six testimonials from junior scientists in his favour.

However, the complainant didn’t comment. When contacted, Dr. Shashi Bala Singh said, “I will not be able to make any comment on it. Please contact my headquarters.”

But DRDO Spokesperson Ravi Gupta said, “We (DRDO) follows strict regulations, whenever such allegations come out in the department. Since in this matter, a committee is already constituted and looking into the matter, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on its proceedings.”

Experiment with Controversies DIPAS was recently in the news for carrying out a study for faster deployment of troops for high ­altitude operations in case of war ­like situation, which was rubbished by the Indian Army. In fact, army severely criticised the methods adopted by the DIPAS scientists to collect data sample for its study. DIPAS was set up after the Indo ­China war in 1962 with the thrust area identification of high altitude physiology, nutrition and biochemistry of human in and also with the urgent need felt for ergonomic assessment of workstations and machine interface. The laboratory carries out various researches and studies to look into the aspect of high altitude warfare.