Telangana High Court
The State Of Telangana vs Dr. G. Srinivas on 5 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT APPEAL No.837 of 2025
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special
Government Pleader attached to the office of the learned
Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants
and Sri D.Prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel,
representing Sri A.Naren Rudra, learned counsel for the
respondent, as well.
2. This writ appeal is directed against the order dated
13.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.14202 of 2024, whereby the
learned writ court has allowed the said writ petition filed by
the respondent herein.
3. The respondent, Professor and Head of the
Department of CT Surgery, Osmania Medical College,
Hyderabad, has been transferred to Government Medical
College, Wanaparthy, as Professor of CT Surgery in the
existing vacancy on administrative grounds by the order
dated 24.05.2024 (Annexure P.1). Being aggrieved, he
approached the writ court in the impugned writ petition.
The learned writ court, after hearing the case of the parties
and based on the pleadings on record, after reference to
certain decisions of the Apex Court was of the considered
view that the transfer order suffers from serious infirmities
and warrants interference of the court. It was accordingly
set aside. The relieving order dated 25.05.2024 was also
set aside. The learned writ court, however, proceeded to
observe that "keeping in view the sensitivity and
seriousness of the issue, this order shall not preclude the
authorities from taking appropriate action against the
petitioner, if warranted, strictly in accordance with law".
The respondent had raised the grievance that the transfer
order was only on account of an enquiry into the complaint
lodged by a Post Graduate student for harassment in
workplace. The complaint is dated 08.05.2024 and a
preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the Internal
Complaints Committee as per the provisions of the Sexual
Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred
to as, "the Act of 2013"). In this background when the
enquiry has not yet reached finality, the respondent was
transferred and posted at Government Medical College,
Wanaparthy, on an equivalent post of Professor of CT
Surgery on administrative grounds. The learned writ
court, being persuaded by the background facts, was of the
opinion that the transfer order is punitive in nature.
Therefore, it was set aside.
4. Section 12 under Chapter V of the Act of 2013
provides for action during pendency of enquiry on a
request made by the aggrieved woman, the Internal
Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be.
On recommendation to the employer, either the aggrieved
woman or the respondent can be transferred to any other
place. The aggrieved woman can also be granted leave for
a period of three months. The employer has the discretion
to grant such other relief to the aggrieved woman as may
be prescribed. However, the transfer order on the face of it
does not reflect that it is on the request of the aggrieved
woman or on the recommendation of the Internal
Committee. The employer has, in its discretion on
administrative grounds, transferred the respondent to
another Government Medical College on an equivalent post.
It appears that taking note of the background enquiry, the
learned writ court was persuaded to hold that the transfer
order is punitive in nature.
5. As we have observed above, the transfer order, on the
face of it, does not appear to be punitive in nature. There
is no stigma or reflection of any action based upon the
complaint of the victim apparent on a reading of the
transfer order. It is within the domain of the employer to
transfer an employee on administrative grounds. The
provisions of the Act of 2013 also contemplate a situation
where during the pendency of the complaint, the aggrieved
victim or the respondent can be transferred to any other
workplace. If the transfer has been made on purely
administrative grounds though in the background of an
enquiry being instituted at the behest of the victim student
of the department, it cannot be stated to be punitive in
nature. The complaint was made on 08.05.2024. The
transfer order is dated 24.05.2024. However, on account
of the interim order passed in favour of the respondent by
the learned writ court, the transfer order has not been
given effect to.
6. We have considered the submission of the learned
counsel for the parties.
7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the
background discussed above, we are of the opinion that the
transfer order not being punitive in nature, the respondent
should join the post as Professor of CT Surgery in the
Government Medical College, Wanaparthy, without further
delay. The enquiry being conducted on the complaint of the
victim dated 08.05.2024 has not reached its logical
conclusion. The employer would ensure that the enquiry is
concluded within a strict timeframe of twelve (12) weeks
from today. The pendency of such enquiry in itself for a
considerable length of time is in the nature of harassment
to the victim and also the respondent, as the Sword of
Damocles keeps hanging over the head of respondent as
well. It is also the objective of the Act of 2013 that such
enquiries be given a conclusive end in accordance with law
after following the procedure and taking into consideration
the recommendation, if any made by the Complaints
Committee. Needless to say, the appellants-employer
would take a decision on the question of repatriation of the
respondent immediately after the conclusion of the
enquiry.
8. The impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge is set aside and the writ appeal is accordingly
allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
______________________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J
05.08.2025
vs
