Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

K.Shankaraiah, S/O Balanandi vs Ap Social Welfare Residential ... on 13 November, 2024

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
                  *HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N
                  +WRIT PETITION No.3857 OF 2014
                             %13.11.2024
#Between:
   K.Shankaraiah, S/o.Balanandi, aged 55 years, Occ: Cook (now
   dismissed from service), B.Pappuru Village and Post, Narapala
   Mandal, Anantapur, Anantapur District.
                                                              ...Petitioner
                                 AND
    1. AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society,
       Hyderabad, Rep.by its Secretary.
    2. AP Social Welfare Residential School, JC Gooty, Anantapur,
       Anantapur District, Anantapur District, rep.by its Principal.
    3. The Enquiry Officer, Deputy Secretary (Academic) APSWREIS,
       AP Social Welfare Residential School, JC Gooty, Anantapur,
       Anantapur District.
    4. AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society,
       Hyderabad rep.by its Chairman.
    5. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary.
       Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.
                                                          ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. M.V.Raja Raam Counsel for the Respondents : Learned GP for Social Welfare

The Court made the following:

<Gist:

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. 2008 0 AIR SC 882

This Court made the following:

//2//

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI *HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N +WRIT PETITION No.3857 OF 2014 %13.11.2024 #Between:

K.Shankaraiah, S/o.Balanandi, aged 55 years, Occ: Cook (now dismissed from service), B.Pappuru Village and Post, Narapala Mandal, Anantapur, Anantapur District.

...Petitioner AND

1. AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Secretary.

2. AP Social Welfare Residential School, JC Gooty, Anantapur, Anantapur District, Anantapur District, rep.by its Principal.

3. The Enquiry Officer, Deputy Secretary (Academic) APSWREIS, AP Social Welfare Residential School, JC Gooty, Anantapur, Anantapur District.

4. AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Hyderabad rep.by its Chairman.

5. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary.

Social Welfare Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

...Respondents DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 13.11.2024

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of order may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No

3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

Yes/No

___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N //3//

APHC010391142014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3457] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 3857/2014 Between:

K.Shankaraiah, S/o Balanandi ...Petitioner AND AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions ...Respondents and Others Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. M.V.Raja Raam Counsel for the Respondents : Learned GP for Social Welfare The Court made the following Order:

The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 11.04.2013 passed by

the 1st respondent and the orders passed by the 4th respondent rejecting the

appeal of the petitioner vide proceedings dated 29.08.2013.

2. The petitioner was working as a Cook in the 2 nd respondent

residential school on daily wages from 09.09.1986. Subsequently

his services were regularized. The petitioner was discharging the

duties of a watchman though he was recruited as a Cook.

3. The 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 02.09.2011 after

considering the report of the Zonal Officer issued the orders of //4//

suspension of the petitioner pending conclusion of the

disciplinary proceedings.

4. The petitioner was issued the show cause notice dated

14.09.2011 and the articles of charge along with the other

annexure were furnished to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was

absolutely no enquiry conducted by the respondents before

passing the impugned proceedings dated 11.04.2013. It is the

specific case of the petitioner that the respondents have not

followed the procedure as contemplated under Rule 20 of C.C.A

Rules for conducting the enquiry.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no

opportunity for cross-examining the witnesses was afforded. It is

also submitted that there is no complaint from the alleged victim

and that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated based on a

hearsay complaint(s). It is further submitted that all the girls

students whose statements were recorded have not stated

having witnessed the incident. The learned counsel further

submits that the petitioner was victimized and targeted by the 2 nd

respondent for reasons better known to the 2nd respondent.

//5//

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Courts

have been consistently holding that any major punishment

imposed without conducting an enquiry deserves to be set aside.

It is also submitted that any major punishment imposed without

following the procedure as contemplated under Rules has to be

set aside. It is further submitted that in the present case the

petitioner was denied principles of natural justice in not making

available the witnesses for cross-examination.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure

adopted by the respondents is unknown to the service

jurisprudence and as such prays for setting aside the impugned

proceedings and hence prays for consequential direction to

reinstate the petitioner together with all consequential benefits

including seniority etc.,

9. The learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the

respondents submits that the petitioner is facing major and

serious allegations. The incident occurred at 04.00AM in the

morning on 24.07.2011 when the girl child studying 8th Class got

up early in the morning and while she was going to her sister's

room in the first floor of the hostel, the petitioner caught hold of

her and pulled her towards him. The girl child bit his hand and //6//

rushed to her room, thereafter, she informed her parents who in

turn requested the principal to take action against the petitioner.

10. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that enquiry

was conducted by the Zonal Officer and charges were framed

against the petitioner. An enquiry as contemplated under law

was conducted. The petitioner participated in the enquiry and

also submitted his arguments, as such,the petitioner cannot

claim that he was not granted any opportunity. It is also brought

to the notice of the Court by the learned Assistant Government

Pleader that several girl students have given statements about

objectionable behaviour of the petitioner and that the petitioner

was also accused of peeping the girl students while they were

taking bath.

11. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in such

cases where the minor girl students studying in social welfare

residential schools are subjected to sexual harassment, there

cannot be any direct evidence. It is also submitted that it the duty

and responsibility of the care taker/warden and the principal to

protect the students studying in the hostel.

12. The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the

petitioner failed to submit his explanation when called upon and

instead sought pardon for the alleged incident. It is also //7//

submitted that no interference is warranted in such cases and

the respondents have taken the appropriate action for the

misdeeds of the petitioner.

13. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the

reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court

for the following reasons : The petitioner is accused of serious

incidents of misconduct. The statement of the Telugu Teacher

would categorically imply the weird behaviour of the petitioner

towards the sleeping girl students in the hostel. The Telugu

Teacher advised the students to safely lock the doors and sleep.

The statements of other Teachers also indicate that the

behaviour of the petitioner is definitely objectionable and

questionable.

14. The claim of the petitioner that procedure under Rule 20 of CCA

Rules was not followed is unfounded. In the instant case of

complaint of misbehaviour with a minor girl child, the petitioner

cannot claim that he was denied the opportunity of cross-

examining the minor girl child. The statement of the minor girl

child is sufficient without requiring the necessity of any

corroborative evidence. The reliance of the petitioner on the

letter alleged to be addressed by the minor girl that she mistook //8//

the incident on 25.07.2011 and that the petitioner rendered

apology and that he was excused is highly unbelievable as the

said letter is neither signed nor dated.

15. In the matter of Moti Lal Vs. State of M.P1.,the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held at para 7 as follows ;

7. It is settled law that the victim of sexual assault is not treated as accomplice and as such, her evidence does not require corroboration from any other evidence including the evidence of a doctor. In a given case even if the doctor who examined the victim does not find sign of rape, it is no ground to disbelieve the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. In normal course a victim of sexual assault does not like to disclose such offence even before her family members much less before public or before the police. The Indian women has tendency to conceal such offence because it involves her prestige as well as prestige of her family. Only in few cases, the victim girl or the family members has courage to go before the police station and lodge a case..."

16. No infirmity can be pointed out either in the enquiry report or in

the impugned proceedings and the impugned proceedings

deserves to be upheld. The punishment imposed on the

petitioner is definitely commensurate to the charges and thus

cannot be termed as disproportionate to the charges framed.

The technicality raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the minor child was not allowed to be cross-examined has to

be brushed aside as the Courts are required to examine the

2008 0 AIR SC 882 //9//

broader probabilities of the case and not get swayed by the

insignificant discrepancies or narrow technicalities. Such cases

are required to be dealt with great sensitivity. Accordingly, the

writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

17. The social welfare residential schools which are set up for

imparting quality education with residential facility to the rural

children coming up from different socially and economically

backward classes. It is the responsibility of the Teachers and the

Principal to ensure that the students studying in the residential

campus are safe and secure. Any incident of misbehaviour with a

girl child or sexual harassment of the children by the staff

working in the said residential campus will deter the parents of

the children from joining their wards in such facilities. The

educational imbalance amongst the rural and urban children

would be severely impacted if the corrective measures are not

taken up by the concerned officers in ensuring a safe, secure

and hygienic atmosphere in the social welfare residential

schools.

18. The enquiry report in the present case has raised serious points

for consideration for the state. The incident in the present writ

petition occurred in the year 2011 and even after a lapse of 13

years the state of affairs in the social welfare residential schools //10//

and hostels have not changed. Alarming incidents are reported

on regular basis and insensitivity to such incidents has a serious

and severe impact on the generations to come. It is high time for

the government to take up the issue and frame the requisite

guidelines which are required to be scrupulously followed in all

social welfare residential schools and hostels. This Court feels

that the following measures would have to be taken up by the

state in consultation with all the stake holders such as National

Commission for Protection of Child Rights, AP State Women and

Child Welfare Department and other concerned NGOs working

for protection of Girl child. The following measures though may

not be exhaustive but are indicative in nature and ought to be

taken up in consultation with the stakeholders and others

concerned for framing detailed and comprehensive guidelines

within the shortest possible convenience.

 Secure Premises: A proper boundary wall installed with solar powered electric fencing and a gate should be mandatory for the hostel buildings. Entry and Exit into the hostel premises should be monitored and registered in the Entry/exit register.

 Surveillance Systems: CCTV cameras should cover all vantage points areas such as entry points, corridors, and common areas, with restricted access to recordings for privacy and safety. Surveillance systems need regular audits to ensure they are functional and secure from unauthorized access.

 Health and Hygiene: Clean and well-maintained bathroom and toilet facilities with adequate water should be made mandatory.

//11//

 Screening of Staff: Comprehensive background checks for all staff members, including security personnel are critical. Periodic re-evaluation and awareness training sessions should reinforce the expectations of safety and sensitivity.

 Gender-Sensitive Training: Staff members, especially those who interact closely with the girls, should be trained on gender sensitivity, communication and handling crises. This ensures a secure environment and helps girls feel comfortable reporting issues.

 Clear Code of Conduct: Establishing a clear code of conduct for staff and residents alike reinforces respectful behavior and discourages harassment or misconduct. This code should be visibly displayed and regularly communicated.

 Regular Counseling Sessions: Access to mental health professionals provides a crucial support system for the girls, helping them navigate hostel life and any personal issues.

 Display of posters: Posters should be displayed at conspicuous places indicating the penalty for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in vernacular language.

 Child Protection Policies: Hostels must adhere to national child protection standards, including compliance with the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

 Grievance Redressal Mechanism: An anonymous grievance mechanism empowers residents to report issues without fear of reprisal. Dedicated personnel should oversee complaints, ensuring swift and fair action.

 Community Engagement: Involvement of parents, local authorities, and educational administrators creates a broader support system for the girl children. Community monitoring ensures greater accountability and transparency.

 Self-Defence Training: Regular self-defence workshops enable girls to be proactive about their safety. Confidence in handling unsafe situations contributes to their mental and physical resilience.

//12//

 Fostering Peer Support Systems: Encouraging peer groups within the hostel can strengthen the community fabric, where girls support and look out for each other, especially during distressing situations.

 Safety Audits: Regular audits assess the effectiveness of safety measures, identifying gaps and areas for improvement. These audits should cover infrastructure, staff compliance and incident response records.

 Feedback Mechanisms: Actively seeking feedback from hostel residents and their families offers valuable insights into areas requiring improvement. Spot and surprise surveys and regular discussions help administrators understand the unique needs of girl children in hostels.

 Collaboration with Legal Authorities: Maintaining a close working relationship with law enforcement agencies helps in swift action during emergencies and ensures compliance with evolving legal standards.

Such measures would ensure the holistic safety of the girl

child in residential hostels which extend beyond physical

security to encompass emotional well-being, empowerment and

community support.

19. The Registry is hereby directed to forward the copy of this Order

to Ministry of Women and Child Welfare, Government of Andhra

Pradesh for framing of consolidated and exhaustive mandatory

guidelines for the Social Welfare Residential Schools and

Hostels in State in consultation with all stake holders.

20. With these observations, this Court is of considered view that

there are no valid and legal grounds to interfere with the //13//

impugned proceedings and accordingly the writ petition is