The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday imposed a fine of Rs 5 lakh on the state for “inhuman and incompatible behavior shown by police officers”, by delaying the registration of complaints of sexual harassment by a woman by a woman, who accused the former vice -chancellor of a yoga institute in Gwalior.
While giving the verdict in favor of the woman, the court directed the former VC to compensate the woman with Rs 35 lakh for the loss of salary and prestige, pain and emotional crisis.
The petitioner appointed as a yoga instructor at a physical education institute alleged that he was sexually assaulted by the former VC. She claimed that in March 2019, she was improperly touched by the then VC, when she was leaving for an orbit. He claimed that he did not file a complaint due to his high position.
In August 2019, the then VC allegedly called him on a holiday -related complaint and misused the situation for searching for a sexual favor. In October 2019, he submitted a complaint to the Sports Department, which described an example of mental and physical harassment and a hostile work environment by VC. In response, the VC denied all the allegations.
Justice Milind Ramesh Fadke saw in his order that when a report of cognitive crime was made by the petitioner, the police officers expected to register the crime. However, it failed to do so.
“Thus, this court found that inhuman and inconsistent behavior shown by police officers also makes them responsible for punishment. Accordingly, the state is directed to pay the petitioner’s compensation to the petitioner within a period of four weeks, which is within a four -week period from the date of the order of predictions, which will be overcome by wrongdoing the officers.”
The court argued that the police officers “were responsible for not taking timely action on the complaint made by the petitioner and were waiting for three long years to register the crime, that even on the directions of the Apex court, who had added to the pain of the petitioner, thus, was also responsible for being punished.”
The story continues below this advertisement
The court found that the petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment at his workplace and by the defendant institute “no steps were taken to expand justice with the petitioner, which deprived his valuable time, energy and prestige”. The court said that the institute had said that its administration should be controlled by a person, which was not even fit to keep any nature in service “.
,
