DR. PUNITA K. SODHI vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS (2010) 

LEGAL SUBJECTS – Workplace Sexual Harassment Law, Employment Law, Administrative Law, Gender Justice, Constitutional Law (Articles 14,15, And 21 About Equality And Dignity).

CITATION OF THE CASE – 

W.P (C) 367 / 2009 & CMS 828, 11426 / 2009.

FACTS –

A qualified ophthalmologist, with MBBS and MS degrees, alleges harassment from Dr. K.P.S. Malik, a former Pool Officer at Safdarjung Hospital. The harassment led to her resignation and subsequent employment at PGIMS, Rohtak. The strain on her family also affected her children. The petitioner claims continuous harassment, including wrongful postings, clinic changes, and stress-inducing professional conditions. In 2006, she filed a complaint for sexual harassment and academic misconduct. An inquiry into her allegations and Dr. Malik's counter-claims was initiated, but the investigation focused on one incident. The petitioner was dismissed in 2009, but her job was halted and invalidated in 2010. In 2010, CAT reinstated her, asking her to resume duties. The petitioner documented 47 instances of harassment and criticized the committee's limited scope, focusing only on physical harassment.

ISSUES –

The petitioner filed two writ petitions challenging the establishment of a committee by Lady Hardinge Medical College and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to investigate her sexual harassment complaint against Dr. K.P.S. Malik. She also challenged the extension of her probation without confirmation and contested the validity of the LHMC Committee and the Experts Committee, questioning their constitution, proceedings, and reports.

DECISION BY COURT –

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Dr. Punita K. Sodhi, finding that the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MHFW) constituted a flawed inquiry committee that violated the Vishaka Guidelines. The committee lacked a female head and included junior members, contradicting directives from the Department of Personnel & Training. It was criticized for inadequately addressing Dr. Sodhi's complaints, instead focusing on counter-complaints by Dr. Malik. The court recognized Dr. Sodhi's victimization and retaliation by her employer, including show-cause notices and punitive actions during the inquiry process. It ordered the reconstitution of the committee to meet legal standards and proper representation, nullifying punitive measures taken against her. The court also noted that his communications contained abusive language, raising questions about her integrity and competence.

IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE –

The Delhi High Court in Dr. Punita K. Sodhi vs. Union of India set a precedent for proper procedural compliance in workplace sexual harassment cases, emphasizing a victim-centric approach and judicial oversight to ensure fairness and influence future judgments and workplace conduct policies.