:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 552 OF 2010 Matildes Lobato de Faria, service, aged 53 years, resident of Patto Government Quarters, Panaji Goa. … Petitioner V e r s u s 1. State of Goa through the Chief Secretary, with office at the Secretariat, Porvorim Goa. 2. President of the Administrative Tribunal Vaidya Hospital Building, 3rd Floor, Panaji Goa. 3. Registrar of Co-operative Societies Sahakar Sankul 4th and 5th Floor EDC Complex, Patto, Panaji Goa. 4. Shri Ulhas N. Kadam, son of Nakul Shankar Kadam, Administrative Tribunal, Vaidya Hospital Building, 3rd Floor, Panaji Goa. 5. Chairperson of the Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment of women, office of the Directorate of Prosecution, Panaji Goa. … Respondents Mr. M. B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. Talaulikar, Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 3. :2: CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & F. M. REIS, JJ. DATE : 20 th JUNE, 2011 . ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per S. A. BOBDE, J) Heard Mr. M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Talaulikar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 3. 2. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed inter- alia for the direction to the respondents to constitute a committee in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka V/s State of Rajasthan ( 1997) 6 SCC 241 and for quashing and setting aside the inquiry report dated 30.11.2006 made by the Chairperson only instead of the entire committee. The facts in brief are that the petitioner alleged molestation and harassment while working as Junior Stenographer in the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Socieities. Her duties were assigned to the Administrative Tribunal. According to her, she suffered molestation and harassment in the hands of the Registrar who tried to grab the muster roll from her hands and in the process touched her sexually. This has been denied by respondent no.4. According :3: to the petitioner, the Tribunal did not pay any heed to her complaint. Hence, she moved the Registrar to forward her complaint to the President who in turn forwarded it to the committee. The committee after recording evidence however came to the conclusion that though the incident took place as alleged the petitioner has contributed to the incident by resisting the Registrar who tried to take the muster roll to which he was entitled. It is this decision which is challenged by the petitioner. At the outset, we note that the main ground for the challenge is that the inquiry report has not been made by a committee constituted by chairperson. 3. Mr. M. B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Government of Goa, Law Department, Panaji, has constituted a committee of five members by an order dated 6.1.2003 as follows : Sr.No . Composition of Committee Work-place from where complaint may be received by respective Chairperson/Member of the Committee. 1 Smt.Shoba Dhumaskar, Public Prosecutor, Mapusa (Chairperson) Directorate of Prosecution and all offices of public Prosecution Asst. Public Prosecutions. :4: 2 Smt. Smita Chandwani, Legal Supdt., Law Department (Member ) Legal Section of Law Department 3 Smt. Margaret Fernandes, Steno Grade-II, Law Department (Member) Establishment Section of Law Department 4 Smt. Jai Gadekar, Registrar, Administrative Tribunal (Member) Office of the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji 5 Smt. Dominica e Souza U.D.C. Registration Department, (Member) Office of District Registrar and all offices of Civil Registrar-cum-sub- Registrar. 4. Shri M. B. Da Costa, learned Counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to Government of Goa, Panaji, has constituted a committee for the Co-operative Department. A complaint committee is constituted in the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Panaji comprising of 10 persons by an order dated 19.7.2006 as follows : 1. Mrs. Sneha S. Morajkar, Dy. Registrar of Co-op. Societies Chairman 2 Mrs. Shivanee Borkar, Co-operative Officer Member :5: 3 Shri V. B. Devidas, Co-operative Officer Member 4 Shri Upasso Gaonkar Special Auditor Member 5 Shri Uday Naik, Sr. Auditor/Inspector/SRO Member 6 Mrs. Kalyani B. Naik Head Clerk Member 7 Shri Vinu Chodankar, Jr. Auditor/Inspector Member 8 Mrs. Pushpa Estrocio, Jr. Auditor/Inspector Member 9 Mrs. Branca D'Silva, L.D.C. Member 10 Mrs. Pratima Dhond, Chairman, The Women's Co-op. Bank Ltd. N.G.O. Member 5. According to the petitioner, the inquiry report ought to have been made and the report ought to have been prepared only by the committee constituted under the order dated 19.7.2006 for the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Panaji and not by the committee constituted by the Law Department jointly for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment of women at work place. Further, according to the learned Counsel the impugned inquiry report has not even been made by the wrong committee but is made only by the Chairman. The fact of the constitution of the committee is undisputed. Undoubtedly, one committee was constituted by :6: the Law Department and other by the Registrar of Co- operative Societies which were formed in pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka V/s State of Rajasthan wherein para 7, the Supreme Court directed the formation of the committee as follows : “7. Complaints committee: The complaint mechanism, referred to in (6) above, should be adequate to provide, where necessary, a Complaints Committee, a special counsellor or other support service, including the maintenance of confidentiality. The Complaints Committee should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its members 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. The Complaints Committee must make an annual report to the Government Department concerned of the complaints and action taken by them. The employers and person-in-charge will also report on the compliance with the aforesaid guidelines including on the reports of the Complaints Committee to the :7: Government Department.” 6. In the present case, we have two committees, one made by the Law Department for dealing with complaints of sexual harassment of women at work place and another constituted by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for dealing with the complaints in the office of Registrar of Co- operative Societies. We have no doubt that the present matter ought to have been inquired into by the committee specifically constituted for dealing with the complaints of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Panaji and not by the committee constituted by the Government of Goa, for dealing with the complaints of sexual harassment of women at work place. The special committee constituted would exclude the generally constituted committee for the purposes of exercising the jurisdiction in the matter of sexual harassment. In the present case, however, the inquiry has not even been made by the wrong committee but report has been prepared only by the chairperson. Undoubtedly, the law requires an inquiry to be made by the committee made by the entire committee and therefore, the impugned report must be treated as null and void. It must be remembered that these committees have been formed for specific purpose of dealing with violations :8: which affect the safety and dignity of the women at work places. These matters have not been left to individual opinion or a single member of the committee however, highly placed. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned report and directing that the petitioner's complaint be placed before the appropriate committee constituted under office No.2-19-2002-EST dated 19th July, 2006 by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary to Government of Goa, Panaji, in the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Panaji Goa, in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court given in the judgment dated 13.08.1997 regarding prevention of sexual harassment of women in work place circulated by the Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Panaji vide Circular No. 2/8/92- PER(Part-I) dated 26.03.1998. The inquiry report is quashed and set aside and the aforesaid committee is directed to make an inquiry and submit a report to the Government in accordance with law. The committee is directed to submit a report within six months from the date the party appearing before it. The petitioner is directed to appear before the committee on 5th July, 2011. :9: Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. S. A. BOBDE,J F. M. REIS, J at*