Bombay High Court
Shri. Hrishikesh Vasantrao ... vs The Zilla Parishad, Sangli And Ors on 25 July, 2016
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
ssm 1 48-wp191.16.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 191 OF 2016
Shri Hrishikesh Vasantrao Kumbhar,
Age- ____Years, Occupation- Service as
Agricultural Extension Officer at,
Panchayat Samiti Walava, District Sangli,
Residing at, Bhagirathi Nivas, Near
Vinayak Nagar, Islampur, Tal. Walava,
District Sangli. ....Petitioner.
Vs.
1 The Zilla Parishad, Sangli,
Having Office at, Sangli, District Sangli,
Through its Chief Executive Officer.
2 The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Sangli, Having Office at,
Sangli, District Sangli.
3 Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Walava, Tal. Walava,
District Sangli. ....Respondents.
1/5
::: Uploaded on - 28/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2016 23:57:12 :::
ssm 2 48-wp191.16.sxw
Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.D. Rane for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA AND
G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE : 25 JULY 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER-G.S. KULKARNI, J.):-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by
consent of the parties.
2 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 14 December 2015, by
which the Respondents have suspended the Petitioner from its
services. The ground as set out in the suspension order is that the
Petitioner had agreed to marry the complainant, one Ms. Yasmin
Hazarat Makandar and that the Petitioner did not marry her and got
married with some other girl. The other reasons as they appeared in
the complaint are also set out in the suspension order.
3 When we heard the matter on the last occasion, we had
expressed to the learned counsel for the Respondents that the reasons
ssm 3 48-wp191.16.sxw
which are set out in the suspension order, prima facie appeared to be
not sustainable, inasmuch as the nature of the complaint was nothing
to do with the discharge of the duties by the Petitioner in the
employment. The grievance of the complainant appeared to be wholly
a private issue, inter-se between the complainant and the Petitioner.
Further, as also the nature of the complaint was of some charges, the
nature of which was sexual harassment at work place, we had
inquired with Mr. Rane, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents, as to whether any procedure as per the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. 1 has been followed by the Respondents? The
matter was accordingly adjourned for today.
4 Mr. Rane, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents, on instructions, fairly submits that the constitution of
the Women's Grievance Redressal Committee, (Enquiry Committee)
which had enquired into the allegations of the Complainant, was not
as per the directions of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Vishaka &
Ors. (Supra). He further submits that at the time the suspension
1 (1997) 6 SCC 241=AIR 1997 SC 3011
ssm 4 48-wp191.16.sxw
order was issued, the report of the Enquiry Committee was also not
available. It is thus fairly conceded on behalf of the Respondents that
the impugned suspension order was passed purely on the complaint as
made by Ms. Yasmin Hazarat Makandar.
5 If what has been pointed out by Mr. Rane, the learned
counsel for the Respondents is the correct position, then surely the
impugned order cannot be sustained. We are thus, inclined to set
aside the impugned order for two reasons. Firstly, in our opinion,
considering the reasons as set out in the impugned order, it is clear
that the Respondents have taken into consideration a private dispute,
thus the suspension order, would have no foundation regarding any
misconduct in discharge of the official duties by the Petitioner.
Secondly, even assuming that the Petitioner is sought to be suspended
on the basis of any sexual harassment at work place, there was no
material available at the time when the impugned suspension order
was issued except the bald assertions of the complainant. The
Respondents have conceded that the report of the Enquiry Committee
was not available when the impugned suspension order was passed.
In our opinion, these reasons are sufficient to interfere in this Petition.
ssm 5 48-wp191.16.sxw
We thus, do not go into the issue as regards the constitution of the
Enquiry Committee or the proceedings before it suffice it to observe
that for the reasons which we have recorded the impugned suspension
order cannot be sustained.
6 Resultantly, impugned order dated 14 December 2015,
suspending the Petitioner, is required to be declared as illegal.
Accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the Writ Petition
is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), which reads thus:-
b) By suitable writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble Court
be pleased to quash and set aside impugned order
dated 14.12.2015 issued by Respondent No.2-Chief
Executive Officer, thereby suspending the Petitioner
from the post of 'Agricultural Extension Officer' and
accordingly permit the Petitioner to join his duties and
also grant all consequential benefits."
There shall be no order as to costs.
(G.S. KULKARNI, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
