- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sanjukta Padhi Petit... v. Chief Executive Odis...
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, employed as Scientist-SA at the Orissa Space Application Centre under the Department of Science & Technology, Government of Orissa, filed two writ petitions seeking reliefs related to alleged sexual harassment and disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner, having qualifications in Oceanography and M.Phil, was initially appointed as Technical Assistant in 1990 and later regularized as Scientist-A in 1997.
She lodged complaints against opposite party no. 4 for sexual harassment and mental harassment at the workplace, including grievances before the Departmental Complaint Committee (constituted per Supreme Court guidelines), the State Commission for Women, and the Police (F.I.R. No. 367 of 2012). While these allegations were under consideration, the petitioner was suspended on 7.9.2012, leading to one writ petition challenging the suspension.
Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962, prompting the petitioner to file another writ petition seeking to quash the initiation of proceedings, related reports, and to direct formation of an impartial complaint committee and action against the alleged harassers.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962, can be quashed at the stage before the proceedings are completed.
- Whether the reports submitted by the Departmental Complaint Committee and the Orissa Human Rights Commission, based on the petitioner’s complaint of sexual harassment, can be quashed.
- Whether an impartial and independent Complaint Committee should be constituted as per Supreme Court guidelines to address allegations of sexual harassment.
- Whether action should be directed against the alleged harassers in the petitioner’s workplace.
- Whether the suspension order dated 7.9.2012 against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The petitioner, represented by senior counsel, contended that being a spinster subjected to workplace harassment, she was entitled to an impartial and independent complaint committee constituted in line with Supreme Court guidelines.
- She sought quashing of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her and the reports submitted by the Departmental Complaint Committee and Orissa Human Rights Commission.
- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decisions in Visakha v. State of Rajasthan and State of Punjab v. V.K Khanna to support the need for an independent committee and protection against sexual harassment.
Opposite Parties’ Arguments
- Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 argued that the writ petition challenging the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was premature as the proceedings were ongoing and the petitioner should participate rather than seek quashing at this stage.
- They pointed out that the Departmental Complaint Committee had reconstituted itself to remove any conflict of interest and had submitted its report rejecting the petitioner’s allegations.
- It was noted that the Orissa Human Rights Commission had considered the matter and dismissed the application on 17.1.2013, a fact allegedly suppressed by the petitioner before the Court.
- Counsel for opposite party no. 4 supported these contentions, emphasizing the prematurity of the writ petition during pending disciplinary proceedings.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Visakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 | Guidelines for constitution of an impartial and independent Complaint Committee to address sexual harassment at workplace. | Petitioner relied on this precedent to argue for formation of an independent committee and protection against harassment. |
| State of Punjab v. V.K Khanna, AIR 2001 SC 343 | Principles relating to workplace harassment and procedural safeguards. | Petitioner cited this case to substantiate the need for protective measures and fair inquiry. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court analyzed the petitions in the context of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. It observed that the petitioner had challenged the initiation of proceedings prematurely without participating in the process. The Court noted that the Departmental Complaint Committee was reconstituted to remove any conflict of interest and had submitted its report rejecting the petitioner’s allegations. The Orissa Human Rights Commission had also completed its enquiry and dismissed the application, a fact not disclosed by the petitioner.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner was given an opportunity to submit explanations and that suspension was challenged separately but no interim relief was granted. Given these circumstances, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the disciplinary proceedings or the reports at this stage.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
The Court dismissed both writ petitions filed by the petitioner challenging the suspension and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings. The direct effect is that the disciplinary process and suspension remain in force, and the petitioner must participate in the proceedings. The Court did not set any new precedent or grant relief regarding the constitution of an independent complaint committee or action against the alleged harassers at this stage.
B.R Sarangi, J.:— The petitioner, who is working as Scientist-SA under Orissa Space Application Centre, Department of Science & Technology, Government of Orissa, has filed W.P (C) No. 25612 of 2012 seeking for the following reliefs:
“(a) writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the proceeding initiation under Annexre-1;
(b) writ of certiorari quashing the report under Annexure-12 & 13;
(c) writ of mandamus directing the O.P No. 5 to initiate action against the O.P No. 2 & 4 for abusing harassing the Petitioner in her workplace;
(d) writ of mandamus to direct the O.P No. 1 to form an impartial and independent Complaint Committee as per guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court;
(e) and pass any other order/orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;”
2. In W.P (C) No. 17480 of 2012, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
(a) Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the order of suspension dtd.07.09.2012 of the Petitioner under Annexure-1;
(b) Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the O.P No. 1 & 2 to take immediate steps/initiate proceedings against the O.P No. 3 & 4 for sexually harassment to petitioner and further to take steps for prevention of such abuses”
3. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner having acquired P.G qualification in the subject Oceanography and M.Phill, was appointed as Technical Assistant in ORSAC on 25.01.1990 and thereafter her services were regularized as Scientific Assistant-B which was re-designated as Scientist-A w.e.f 03.02.1997 The petitioner made a grievance against opposite party no. 4 regarding sexual harassment in the workplace and accordingly, she lodged a complaint before the Departmental Complaint Committee of ORSAC, which was constituted as per the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court and she also sought for permission to file a complaint before the Police for causing mental harassment to her at workplace. She also made a grievance before the Chairperson, State Commission for Women, Bhubaneswar alleging that she was compelled to stay beyond the office hours thereby causing harassment by the opposite parties 1 to 4 and also alleged with regard to the sexual abuse by opposite party no. 4. Consequently, she lodged an F.I.R before Mahila Police Station bearing P.S Case No. 367 of 2012. When the allegations against the authorities were pending for consideration, she was placed under suspension on 7.9.2012 against which the petitioner has filed the writ petition bearing W.P (C) No. 19480 of 2012. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the Departmental Complaint Committee, since the wife of opposite party no. 4 is one of the members of the said Committee, the said Committee has been reconstituted withdrawing the wife of opposite party no. 4 temporarily and the Committee submitted a report to the appropriate authority. When the same was pending, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner pursuant to which notice of memorandum dated 11.10.2012 was issued to the petitioner with other documents proposing to hold an enquiry under Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 against her vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition bearing W.P (C) No. 25612 of 2012. The petitioner seeks to quash the report submitted by the Departmental Complaint Committee on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 1.8.2012 before the Orissa Human Rights Commission and the petition dated 6.8.2012 before the Minister, Women & Child Development, Odisha vide Annexure-12 and the subsequent enquiry report in Annexure-13. The petitioner further seeks for a direction to opposite party no. 5 to initiate action against opposite party nos. 2 and 4 for abusing and harassing the petitioner in her work place and also to direct the opposite party no. 1 to form an impartial and independent complaint committee as per the guideline of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, these petitions.
4. Mr. A.K Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner being a spinster having been abused in her work place, an impartial independent complaint committee should be constituted in consonance with the guidelines of the Hon'ble apex Court and action should be taken against the opposite party nos. 2 and 4 for causing such harassment to the petitioner and consequentially seeks for quashing of the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and the report on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner submitted by the Departmental Complaint Committee in Annexure-12 and the enquiry report submitted as per order dated 8.8.2012 of the Orissa Human Rights Commission in Annexure-13. To substantiate his contention, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the apex Court in Visakha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011 and State of Punjab v. V.K Khanna, AIR 2001 SC 343.
5. Mr. B.P Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 strenuously urged that the writ petition bearing W.P (C) No. 25612 of 2012 is a premature one inasmuch as against initiation of proceeding as contemplated under Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962, the petitioner has approached this Court and more so, she seeks for quashing of the report submitted by the Departmental Complaint Committee in Annexure-12 by which rejecting the allegations made by the petitioner and in Annexure-13, the report submitted pursuant to the order dated 8.8.2012 of the Orissa Human Rights Committee and on consideration of the same, the Orissa Human Rights Commission vide order dated 17.1.2013 in Case No. 2469 of 2012 observed that the Commission does not see any ground to continue with the enquiry and accordingly, dismissed the application. Therefore, it is urged that the writ petition i.e W.P (C) No. 25612 of 2012 is a premature one and seeks for dismissal of the same.
6. Mr. P.K Nanda, learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 supports the contention raised by the learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and states that when the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner pursuant to Annexure-1 is still pending, the writ petition is a premature one and seeks for dismissal of the same.
7. On the basis of the facts pleaded above, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court assailing the initiation of the proceeding against her vide Annexure-1 instead of participating in the said proceeding. Therefore, the writ petition bearing W.P (C) No. 25612 of 2012 is a premature one at this point of time.
8. So far as quashing of Annexures-12 and 13 is concerned, the enquiry having been done by the Departmental Complaint Committee, which has been reconstituted by the authority and the enquiry having been done by the Orissa Human Rights Commission on the basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner and on consideration of the same, final order having been passed on 17.1.2013 in Case No. 2469 of 2012, which has been suppressed by the petitioner before this Court, this Court is not inclined to entertain such grievance made by the petitioner. It further appears that by issuing Annexure-1, opportunity has been given to the petitioner to submit her explanation. Further, pending initiation of disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which has been challenged in W.P (C) No. 17480 of 2012 and while entertaining the said writ petition, this Court has not passed any interim order. Since the challenge to the initiation of the proceeding pursuant to Annexure-1 in W.P (C) No. 25612 of 2012 has been held to be premature one, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition in W.P (C) No. 17480 of 2012.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition in W.P (C) No. 17480 of 2012 filed by the petitioner assailing the order of suspension and the consequential initiation of the departmental proceeding in Annexure-1 challenged in W.P (C) No. 25612 of 2012 cannot sustain. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.
Alert