HC orders Nalco to remove XIM head from panel

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked the government to ensure that the National Aluminium Corporation (NALCO) reconstitutes the committe...

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday asked the government to ensure that the National Aluminium Corporation (NALCO) reconstitutes the committee it had set up to probe charges of sexual harassment against its chairman C. Venkataramana.

According to the court’s directions, the director of Xavier Institute of Management (XIM), Bhubaneshwar, who was an acquaintance of the accused and the only member of the panel from outside, will have to go. In his place, the complaints panel will have to induct a member of an NGO and another person recommended by the Central Vigilance Commission. Incidentally, Ventaramana had also served on the XIM board.

The division bench of the high court also criticised the committee for ‘‘biased’’ questioning of the employee who had charged the NALCO chief with sexual harassment.

Story continues below this ad

The hearing in the matter has now been deferred to May 6 as Additional Solicitor General M. Rohatgi sought more time to revert to the HC regarding the reconstitution of the committee.

Rohatgi told mediapersons later he would have to speak to the Home Secretary and Secretary, Mines before consenting to the court’s suggestion. It seemed unlikely that permission for reconstitution would be granted within a week, he said.

Representing the state and NALCO, Rohatgi had sought to submit the inquiry report of the committee. He said the committee members were ‘‘lay people’’ who were not aware of the exact manner in which a cross-examination was to be conducted.

	CASE RECAP

			• Molestation incident occurs on Feb 7 at Leela Hotel, accused is NALCO chief C. Venkatramana. Victim names regional manager Virendra Singh as accomplice • Victim lodges FIR against Venkatramana and Singh on Feb 12 • Petition filed in March; pleads for action against accused, protection from arbitrary transfers, challenges the appointment of the internal inquiry committee. — ENS

However, the court asserted that the line of cross-examination of the committee was indeed biased, and a ‘‘proper committee’’ had to be formed. ‘‘The cross-examination was aimed at proving that she is a liar,’’ it said.

Story continues below this ad

Satish Maneshinde, counsel for the petitioner, had demanded a new committee to conduct the inquiry.

Earlier, the petitioner had complained about the proceedings of the committee. She had said the committee’s cross-examination had caused her ‘‘undue trauma’’, adding the committee asked her for a ‘‘physical demonstration’’ of the molestation incident that occurred on February 7.