Chattisgarh High Court
Dr. (Smt.) Savitri Tripathi vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 September, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 134 of 2022
• Dr. (Smt.) Savitri Tripathi W/o Shri D.R. Tripathi, Aged About 53 Years
Occupation Service Working As Professor In English Department And
Posted At Government J.P.Verma P.G. Arts And Commerce College,
Bilaspur, R/o. 9/97, Green Park Colony, P.S. Civil Lines, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District
Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Home Department,
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. Additional Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. B.L. Goyal, Ex-Principal (Now Retired) Govt. J.P. Verma, P.G. Arts
And Commerce College, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh. R/o L-9, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. U.N. Kurrey, Assistant Professor (English) Govt. College, Akaltara,
District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
6. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
7. Superintendent Of Police, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
8. Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
9. Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
WA No. 412 of 2021
2
• U. N. Kurrey S/o Shri Ram Prasad Kurrey Aged About 59 Years
Assistant Professor (English), Government College, Akaltara, District,
Janjgir Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Dr. (Smt.) Savitri Tripathi W/o Shri D.R. Tripathi, Aged About 53 Years
Occupation Service, Working As Professor In English Department And
Posted At Government J.P. Verma P.G. Arts And Commerce College,
Bilaspur, R/o 9/79, Green Park Colony P.S. Civil Lines, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education
Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department
Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
4. Additional Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya
Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
5. B.L. Goyal Ex-Principal (Now Retired) Government J.P. Verma P.G.
Arts And Commerce College, Jarhabhata, Bilaspur, District Bilapur
Chhattisgarh R/o L- 9, Vinoba Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
6. Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
7. Superintendent Of Police Bilapur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
8. Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
9. Station House Officer Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant in WA No.134/2022 & respondent No.1 in WA No.412/2021
: Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate.
For Appellant in WA No.412/2021 & respondent No.5 in WA No.134/2022
: Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate.
For Respondents 1 to 3 & 6 to 9 in WA No.134/2022 and respondents 2 to 4 &
6 to 9 in WA No.412/2021 : Shri R. Pradhan, Additional AG.
3
For Respondent No.4 in WA No.134/2022 and respondent No.5 in WA
No.412/2021 : Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Sr. Advocate with Shri
Sabyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 08/09/2022
Date of Judgment : 30/09/2022
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ &
Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J
C A V JUDGMENT
Per Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.
The aforesaid Writ Appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment, as they arise out of the order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WPCR No.174/2018 whereby the learned Single
Judge has not issued any direction for taking any action against respondent
No.4 and directed the Secretary/Director/their authorized persons from Higher
Education or Principal of the College where the petitioner (Appellant in WA
No.134/2022) was posted to initiate proceedings against respondent No.5 for
registration of FIR on the basis of complaint made by the petitioner and
materials collected by the fact finding Committee within 2 months from the
date of receipt of copy of the order. It was further observed that on
registration of the FIR, it is for the Investigating Authority to investigate the
matter and submits its report to the concerned trial Court as per the procedure
prescribed under the CrPC.
2. Writ Appeal No.134/2022 has been preferred by appellant Dr. (Smt.)
Savitri Tripathi seeking to set aside the finding recorded by the learned Single
Judge in para-18 of the impugned order and to issue direction for taking any
action against the respondent No.4, whereas, Writ Appeal No.412/2021 has
been preferred by appellant (respondent No.5 in writ petition) U.N. Kurrey
seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the
learned Single Judge in WPCR No.174/2018.
3. Appellant - Dr. (Smt.) Savitri Tripathi had filed a Writ Petition seeking
direction against the respondents No.1 to 4 to submit the complaint along with
preliminary report as also the departmental enquiry report to the concerned
police for taking cognizance against the respondent No.5 in the light of
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vishaka and Others
Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others {(1997) 6 SCC 241}, as also for taking
criminal action against respondent No.5. The appellant was also aggrieved by
the in-action on the part of Shri B.L. Goyal, a retired Principal, who was duty
bound to send the complaint to the concerned police, however, he neither
forwarded the complaint of the petitioner nor took any action. So, some
action ought to be taken against him.
4. Case of the writ petitioner/appellant is that she is the Senior Professor of
English and at the relevant time, she was posted at Government J.P. Verma,
P.G. Arts and Commerce College, Bilaspur. Respondent No. 5, who is the
Assistant Professor in English and posted at Government College, Akaltara
visited the college of the appellant on 26.09.2012 and 27.09.2012 and he used
obscene language about the writ petitioner. On 05.10.2012, after meeting with
B.L. Goyal, now Retired Principal, J.P. Verma College, outside of the room of
the Principal, he used the words ",s lquks ew>s rqels ckr djuk gS pyksA " and directed her
to come inside the English and Hindi Department. The appellant looking at the
conduct of respondent No. 5, said that if he wanted to talk to her, he should
talk in the Principal's Chamber. Then he said that he belongs to reserved
category and as such she cannot take any action against him. The appellant
orally informed the indecent behaviour of respondent No. 5 to respondent No.
4. Again on 12.10.2012 at 4 pm during the course of office hours, respondent
No.5 suddenly entered the Hindi and English Department and started abusing
her with filthy language which amounted to outraging the modesty of the
appellant and tarnishing the reputation of the senior lady professor. He used
the words "Tripathi Chalo Maja Kare Tum to Janti Ho Pichle Bara Varso se
Tumhare Mere Saririk Sambandh Hai Aur Itne He Varso Se Tum Meri Rakhel
Ho" in the presence of professors who had protested such conduct of
respondent No. 5. Therefore, on 13.10.2013, she made a written complaint to
the Principal, Government J.P. Verma P.G. Arts and Commerce College,
Bilaspur. Thereafter, she again sent reminders on 19.12.2012 & 29.12.2012
and copy was also sent to respondent No.4 who became Additional Director,
Higher Education Department, Regional Office, Government of Chhattisgarh.
5. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has observed
thus in para-18:-
"18. Further contention of respondent No. 5 that since
respondent No. 5 was employed in different institution,
therefore, any alleged act or omission done by him
cannot be construed as sexual harassment at the
workplace, this contention is also incorrect as the
workplace has been defined in 2(o) of the Act, 2013.
The petitioner was working at J.P. Verma, P.G. Arts and
Commerce College, Bilaspur where respondent No. 5
has visited and has made certain obscene against
petitioner, therefore, as per the Section 2(o) of the Act
the incident has taken at workplace where petitioner
was working. The workplace has to be considered, the
place of working of the victim not on the basis of
offender, as such, it is held that petitioner was subjected
to harassment at workplace. Therefore, the points No. 1
and 2 are decided that the incident has taken place at
workplace and since the incident has happened at
workplace, either respondent No. 1 or respondent No. 4
should have taken action as per the judgment of
Vishaka (supra) and the Act, 2013. The respondents No.
1 and 4 failed to discharge their obligation and thus
failed to perform their duty. Since more than 8 years
have lapsed, the particulars of respondent No.1 is not
available on record and respondent No.4 has already
retried from service, this Court is restrained from
issuing directions for taking any action against them,
but this Court hope and trust that the State Government
should see that in future if such exigency arise, any
victim of sexual harassment at workplace should not
run pillar to post to get her redressal."
6. Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, learned counsel for appellant-UN Kurrey
would submit that while considering the enquiry report, the competent
authority has opined that the allegations against the appellant seem to have
been made malafidely. He also submits that no law prohibits/bars the
petitioner to lodge FIR of the alleged incident and earlier, the petitioner had
filed the Writ Petition only for conducting the departmental proceeding. He
would further submit that as the alleged incident took place in the year 2012,
for the offence under Section 509 of the IPC, uttering any word, or making
any gesture with intention to insult the modesty of a woman, etc., on the
relevant date, the offence was punishable only for one year, and as per Section
468 of the CrPC, after one year, no cognizance can be taken. He also
contended that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sakri Vasu Vs. State of UP and
others {(2008) 2 SCC 409} wherein it is clearly held that if any person has a
grievance that his FIR is not being registered, then the first step which is to be
taken is to make a complaint to the concerned Police, then to the
Superintendent of Police and thereafter to prefer an application under Section
156 (3) of the CrPC before the competent Magistrate or to file a complaint
under Section 200 of the CrPC. He prayed that the impugned order is bad in
law and is thus liable to be set aside.
7. Shri Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant would submit
that the criminal action on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Vishaka (Supra) and the departmental proceedings are
separate and distinct in nature. He would submit that whenever in any work
place any incident of sexual harassment happens and the same gets noticed by
the employer, then as per the Vishaka Guidelines, as applicable on the date of
the incident, it is the bounden duty of the employer to not only take
disciplinary action, but also to initiate appropriate action in accordance with
law, by making a complaint with the competent authority. As the then
Principal has failed to discharge his legal duty, and in the impugned order, it
was also found that there was delay of 8 years for non-compliance of Vishaka
Guidelines, so some action should have been taken against him. However, the
writ Court wrongly exonerated the respondent No.4 - BL Goyal, Ex-Principal.
The direction issued for registering the FIR was just and proper and the Writ
Appeal filed by appellant-UN Kurre is without any merit.
8. Shri Bhaduri, learned Senior Counsel would submit that respondent
No.4 has always discharged his duties diligently and now, he has already
retired from service. Therefore, the writ Court, after taking into consideration
all the aspects of the matter, has rightly not issued any direction against him,
as the petitioner has grievance mainly with appellant-UN Kurre. He,
therefore, submits that the Appeal filed by the petitioner is not tenable and
prays for dismissal of the Appeal.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record with utmost circumspection.
10. Perusal of the records would reveal that a preliminary fact finding
enquiry was conducted by Dr. Smt. Asha Kaushik, Principal, Govt. M.S.
Naveen Girls College, Bilaspur and she had submitted the report dated
27.9.2013 to the Additional Director, Higher Education by mentioning
reference letter dated 10.7.2013 of the office of Higher Education Department,
Raipur (CG) and in the said report, it was found that appellant-UN Kurre had
used filthy and abusive words against the petitioner. The Sexual Harassment
of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
(henceforth 'the Act, 2013') (Act No.14 of 2013) came into force on
9.12.2013 and till such date, the guidelines laid down in the matter of Vishaka
(Supra) were applicable. In the present case, the petitioner has stated that the
incident had occurred on 26.9.2012, 27.9.2012, 5.10.2012 and 12.10.2012.
During the course of enquiry before Dr. Smt. Asha Kaushik on 5.8.2013, in
response to the questionnaire given to her on 1.8.2013 about the incidents, she
has specifically given separate response to the incident dated 12.10.2012 (in
response it was wrongly mentioned as 12.10.2013).
11. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing WPC
No.700/2014, as no action had been taken and enquiry was also not
completed. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.4.2014 with a
direction to the Commissioner, Higher Education to make a proper enquiry
into the complaint of the petitioner and to take a decision in accordance with
law, expeditiously. In the said order, it was observed that the Commissioner
has sought a report from respondent No.4 - BL Goyal, which was duly
submitted, but, some more information/relevant documents were awaited.
Liberty was reserved in favour of the petitioner that if the complaint is not
disposed of within a period of 3 months from the date of the order, she may
revive the petition.
12. In the light of preliminary enquiry, the Commissioner, Higher Education
was directed to initiate departmental proceeding vide letter dated 13.11.2014
issued by the Deputy Secretary, Higher Education Department. The
competent authority has also found the charge No.1 relating to indecent
behaviour by appellant - UN Kurre with the petitioner to be proved. The State
Government after considering the enquiry report, vide order dated 25.11.2017,
issued a warning to the appellant - UN Kurre that he shall not commit any
such incident in future and accordingly, the departmental enquiry was closed.
13. The Additional Secretary vide letter dated 19.5.2014 had sought
information whether the petitioner has lodged a complaint to the police or not
from respondent No.4 - BL Goyal as the incident seemed to be criminal in
nature. In response, respondent No.4 informed that no such complaint was
made by the petitioner to the police or Head of the Department. The Special
Duty Officer, Higher Education Department vide letter dated 31 st October,
2014 asked the petitioner to furnish the details regarding the Writ Petition (C)
No.700/2014 preferred by her as also about the FIR, if any, which she had
directly lodged in the Police Station, for taking appropriate decision.
14. The petitioner vide letter dated 11.11.2014 had sent her reply to the
Secretary of the Department stating that the incident happened at the work
place during working hours and she has given a complaint on 13.10.2012 to
the Principal - Shri BL Goyal. However, after receiving the complaint, he had
neither initiated any departmental proceeding nor lodged any report. Even the
Department has not given any permission or direction to directly lodge a
report. She has further stated in her reply that it is the moral responsibility of
the Department to provide protection to women employees from sexual
harassment in workplace and to initiate appropriate disciplinary action as well
as criminal proceeding. She finally requested not to make any unnecessary
correspondence and harass the petitioner and to take action on her complaint
on the basis of enquiry report.
15. As per Section 19 (g) of the Act, 2013, it is the duty of the employer to
provide assistance to the woman if she so chooses to file a complaint in
relation to the offence under the IPC or any other law for the time being in
force. Section 27 of the Act, 2013 stipulates that no court shall take
cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act or any rules made
thereunder, save on a complaint made by the aggrieved woman or any person
authorised by the Internal Committee or Local Committee in that behalf. In
such circumstances, on examination of the role played by respondent No.4 -
BL Goyal and having due regard to direction given by this Court in WPC
No.700/2014 to the Commissioner, Higher Education Department for making
enquiry into the complaint of the petitioner, we find that the writ Court was
justified in not issuing any direction for taking any action against respondent
No.4. Accordingly, Writ Appeal No.134/2022 filed by the petitioner/ appellant
for issuing direction for taking action against the respondent No.4 is without
any merit.
16. Considering the laudable object of enacting the Act, 2013, in pursuance
of Vishakha Guidelines, and the protection against sexual harassment and the
right to work with dignity, direction issued in the impugned order for
registration of the FIR when the petitioner/appellant is continuously pursuing
such cause, we do not find any substantial point to interfere with the impugned
order. It is settled law that if the information given clearly mentions
commission of cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register the
FIR forthwith. The other considerations such as, whether information is
falsely given, whether information is genuine or credible etc, are not relevant
at the stage of registration of FIR. These are issues that have to be verified
during investigation of the FIR. The CrPC gives power to the Police Officer
to file final report under Section 173 of the Code seeking closure of the matter.
The contention put forth by Shri Marhas, learned counsel for the appellant in
WA No.412/2021 about limitation of cognizance of offence is not relevant at
this juncture and the other points urged by him do not persuade us to take a
view that the direction issued for registration of the FIR is not proper.
17. For the foregoing reason, this Court is of the view that the appellant has
not been able to make out a case for interference and WA No.412/2021 also
deserves to be dismissed.
18. Resultantly, both the Writ Appeals being devoid of any substance
deserve to be and are hereby dismissed with no costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
Chief Justice Judge
Barve
