4.Instead, this issue can be resolved by invoking Rule 7(4) of Sexual Harassment of women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013. Rule 7 deals with the manner of enquiry into complaint. Rule 7 (4) states that the Complaints Committee shall make an enquiry into the complaint in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Rule 7 (5) states that the Complaints Committee shall have the right to give an ex parte decision on the complaint if one of the parties failed to turn up. Legal practitioners are not allowed to represent the parties at any stage of the proceedings before the Complaints Committee. We can therefore safely conclude that the statutory scheme envisages holding an enquiry in the presence of both the parties. If an allegation is made against a person, the person who is charged with sexual misconduct must be given an opportunity to crossexamine the person making the allegation. In this case, the complainant gave her version behind the back of the appellant. The appellant was not afforded the opportunity of cross-examining her. The appellant was examined by the Sub Committee only after the complainant had already given her testimony. While so, the Chair Person of the Gender Sensitisation & Internal Complaint Committee had given a finding that the allegation against the appellant herein had already been proved. In other words, the appellant stands condemned even without affording him due opportunity. Merely recording his defence version will not amount to grant of sufficient opportunity. Unless, the person making the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ allegation is put to cross-examination, the truth would never come out.
