Delhi: In the Energy and Resources Institute- TERI’s former chief RK Pachauri’s Sexual Harassment case, the order of the High Court of Delhi is reserved by it in the petition filled by female employee of TERI. In the petition it was sought that the anticipatory bail which was granted to RK Pachauri be cancelled.
The decision was taken by a Single- Judge’s Bench of Delhi High Court on 11th day of February, this year. And it is in connection with the Sexual harassment charges which had been levelled by the female employee of TERI against RK Pachuari. In the charges levelled against him, it is sought to allege that RK Pachauri had harassed her since 2013’s September month.
In connection with these charges levelled in FIR, RK Pachauri successfully moved the Trial Court, where he got anticipatory bail order in his favour. In the said order, Pachauri was granted anticipatory bail on the condition that he should not enter the TERI’s premises and also he was asked to co- operate with the investigation whenever required.
Moreover, in the said case relation, it was also coming in the picture that a former researcher of TERI, MR. Rahul Singh was ‘coaxed’ by senior officials in TERI to go to the victim and offer her an out of court settlement. And this was brought in picture when said Rahul Singh appeared the Police and filed complaint on 12th day of last month. The said incident is also brought before the Bench by filing the status report by the Delhi Police.
As per said Status report, Sajai Joshi, the Director of TERI agreed during the interrogation that he in fact had spoken to the friend of the victim female employee, Mr. Rahul Singh and asked him to propose her to settle the issue outside the Court.
However, it was also found mentioned in the status report that the conversation held between Joshi and Singh was only ‘casual’ and it was initiated with an intent to save the image of TERI in public domain, as admitted by Joshi. Even, the area convenor of TERI, Reena Singh also denied categorically that instances of talks of settlement with Singh.
However, the Bench remain constant on the decision taken in the anticipatory bail’s order and it had declined to accept the claim sought under the petition.