Reply sought from centre, TERI in RK Pachauri sexual harassment caseNew Delhi: Delhi High Court today sought a response from the government on a plea by a TERI employee alleging that the organisation had not acted against its chief RK Pachauri, as recommended by an
New Delhi: Delhi High Court today sought a response from the government on a plea by a TERI employee alleging that the organisation had not acted against its chief RK Pachauri, as recommended by an internal complaints committee in connection with her sexual harassment complaint.
A bench of Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath issued notice to the government, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and Dr Pachauri seeking their replies by November 16 on the woman's plea.
"File your necessary counter affidavits within three weeks. Rejoinder in one week thereafter. This is not a matter we can dismiss just like that. The issue requires consideration," the bench said.
The internal complaints committee (ICC) report had been stayed by an industrial tribunal on May 29 on his plea, his counsel had earlier told the court.
The woman in her petition has challenged the stay order as well as the jurisdition of the industrial tribunal to deal with appeals against the ICC report or non-implementation of its recommendations.
Earlier, the woman's counsel had alleged in court that TERI and its governing council had "primarily failed to treat it as a misconduct or suspend him (Pachauri)" as recommended by ICC in its report.
The counsel had also claimed that TERI was treating the ICC report "like a backroom inquiry" and sought its service rules saying there was a "lack of transparency" on how the organisation, funded by the government, worked.
On July 17, Dr Pachauri was allowed by a Delhi court to enter his office premises, except the head office here and a branch in Gurgaon.
An FIR was registered against Pachauri on February 13 on charges of sexual harassment under IPC sections 354, 354(a) 354(d) (molestation) and 506 (criminal intimidation).
Dr Pachauri had moved the trial court for relief following the direction of the High Court, which had on February 19 given him interim protection from arrest till February 23.