The Allahabad High Court recently upheld the suspension of a District Programme Officer accused of sexual harassment, emphasizing that such action builds trust among women employees and prevents the misuse of power by senior officials.
Justice Ajit Kumar remarked:
“Naturally, if the employee is regularly discharging duties on a position that he holds as a head of the department, the authority may place the said employee under suspension — firstly, as a confidence-building measure amongst the working women in the department, and secondly, to ensure that such an officer may not abuse his position to pressurize other working women or the aggrieved woman.”
Read also:- Supreme Court: Property Transfer Under Section 48(e) Is Voidable, Not Automatically Void
The case involved Shailendra Kumar Rai, who challenged his suspension order passed by the Chief Secretary of Child Development and Nutrition, Uttar Pradesh. He was working as District Programme Officer in Kushinagar when the suspension was issued.
The petitioner argued that the allegations did not qualify as sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, especially since the Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) was not properly formed as required under Section 4 of the Act. His counsel submitted that comments such as calling the complainant “fatty” and inviting her for evening walks or meals did not amount to harassment.
However, the counsel for the state refuted this, arguing:
“Body shaming of the complainant and other remarks together constitute sexual harassment under the law.”
They added that the petitioner had already given his statement during the inquiry and could have moved an application to cross-examine the complainant, which he failed to do.
Additionally, an FIR had been lodged against the petitioner by another woman alleging serious misconduct, including indecent behavior and threats, further reinforcing the concerns of multiple women employees feeling unsafe under his supervision.
The Court clarified that suspension is not a form of punishment but a preventive measure to ensure that the accused does not interfere with ongoing investigations or intimidate witnesses.
“An employee is placed under suspension by the employer only to ensure that he is not able to influence the enquiry in any manner,” the Court stated, citing previous legal precedents.
Read Also:- Honour Killing Cannot Be Ruled Out: Allahabad HC Shields Adult Married Couple, Warns SSP of Consequences If Harm Occurs
While the Court acknowledged procedural lapses and allowed the petitioner to appeal, it declined to interfere with the suspension. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal within four weeks, and instructed that the appellate authority must resolve it within two months.
The suspension will remain in force until the final decision, but the petitioner must continue receiving subsistence allowance during this period.
Case Title: Shailendra Kumar Rai v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
