Women panel serves notice on PGI Director

Sandeep Rana
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, April 18

The National Commission for Women, New Delhi, has served a notice on PGI Director Jagat Ram in a sexual harassment complaint lodged by a former research scholar over “inaction” against the accused doctor.

The complaint was filed around a year ago and the commission has sought reply from Jagat Ram in 10 days.

Sources said the victim had approached the national commission after she did not get appropriate response from the institute. She did not even receive the inquiry report from the PGI.

According to guidelines, after completion of the inquiry report, one copy each has to be given to the complainant and the accused.

“Even a report copy was not given to her. She had to write regarding this to the commission, after which she got the copy,” a senior PGI functionary told The Tribune. “The complaint of molestation and sending obscene videos and messages by a PGI Prof was filed on May 20 last year. It has been around a year, but no major action has been taken. The PGI waited for the governing body to even issue a chargesheet against the accused. As per the norms, an action has to be taken in six months,” he added.

Sources said the complainant’s husband and kin are being pressurised to reach a consensus in this regard. The PGI Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), headed by Prof Savita Kumari, had submitted its report to the Director in October last year. Sources said it was concluded in the report that the accused doctor from Microbiology Department had sent obscene videos and messages to the complainant. It further added molestation might have taken place, said sources.

The PGI took months before serving him with a chargesheet on January 30 after the governing body asked the institute to take action. The professor did not reply to the chargesheet despite reminders and instead approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

The scholar had left the PGI after the incident.

Meanwhile, Director Jagat Ram was not available for comments. However, PGI spokesperson Manju Wadwalkar said she did not have any information.

What the CAT said

In its March 22 directions, the CAT observed, “...am of the view that once the ICC report is already under a cloud which became the basis for issuance of the chargesheet, therefore, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the applicant and accordingly, the respondents are directed not to proceed with the charge sheet till the next date of hearing.”