Sulaxna Mary vs All India Institute Of Medical ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 6972 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+          W.P.(C) 8940/2014 and CM APPL. 20451/2014

                                                  Decided on: 18.12.2014

IN THE MATTER OF:
SULAXNA MARY                                          ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Sachin Puri, Advocate with
                         Ms. Jyoti Ojha, Advocate

                         versus


ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ORS
                                                 ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Sumit Babbar, Advocate for Mr. Mehmood Pracha, SLC

CORAM HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J.(Oral)

1. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the

respondents/AIIMS had sought time to obtain instructions in the light

of the averments made in the present petition.

2. Today, learned counsel for the respondents/AIIMS states that

the inquiry conducted in respect of the allegations of sexual

harassment levelled by the petitioner against two employees working

in the Dental Unit of the respondents/AIIMS has already been

concluded and the report is pending consideration before the

Competent Authority, namely, the Director, AIIMS. He states that a

decision has yet to be taken on the recommendations made in the

Inquiry Report. It is further submitted that the present petition is not

maintainable in this Court for the reason that the AIIMS is a notified

body under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and

therefore, the remedy of the petitioner lies before the Central

Administrative Tribunal.

3. Mr. Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his

client is willing to approach the Tribunal for appropriate relief but in

the meantime, she may be protected insofar as the office order dated

19.11.2014 is concerned, whereunder the petitioner has been

transferred/posted out of the Dental Unit.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents/AIIMS argues that the

impression sought to be given by the petitioner that the transfer order

dated 19.11.2014 is punitive in nature, is incorrect inasmuch as the

transfer is a routine order and in any case, the petitioner has only

been shifted from one wing of the respondents/AIIMS to another

wing.

5. The aforesaid submission is however disputed by learned

counsel for the petitioner, who states that it is the petitioner alone,

who has been transferred out of the Dental Unit and the same is

attributable to her complaint wherein allegations of sexual

harassment have been levelled against two employees of the Dental

Unit.

6. Without going into the merits of the case, having regard to the

fact that the AIIMS is a notified body under Section 14 of the

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, it is deemed appropriate to

dispose of the present petition with liberty granted to the petitioner to

approach the Central Administrative Tribunal for appropriate relief in

respect of the office order dated 19.11.2014. In the meantime, the

respondents/AIIMS shall not take any coercive steps against the

petitioner in terms of the office order dated 19.11.2014, for a period

of one week from today.

7. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

                                                     (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 18, 2014                                       JUDGE
rkb