Point of law; When the competent authority recorded its satisfaction based on the material placed before him along with the complaint that itself suffice to place a Government servant under suspension

ORDER :

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the action of the first respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.1567 General Administration (SEB.I) Department dated 12.10.2020, thereby suspending the petitioner basing on the report of the fifth respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short ‘the Act’) and consequently suspend G.O.Rt.No.1567 dated 12.10.2020 issued by the first respondent.

2. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:

3. The petitioner while working as Enforcement Superintendent in Special Enforcement Bureau, Guntur Division, Guntur District , seized Non-Duty Paid Liquor which was being transported illegally. The petitioner holds recognition for detecting 177 cases, arrest of 401 accused, seizing 12939 bottles of liquor and 139 vehicles including lorries and four wheelers, to show that he worked with sincerity and honesty in his duties. The contention of the petitioner is that, having an evil eye on his sincerity, few political leaders and his colleagues hatched a plan to frame him and published a news article in the month of July, 2020 stating that one higher official in Special Enforcement Bureau Wing is harassing women. On the anonymous complaint, a belt case was registered at Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Pedakurapadu on 07.09.2020.

4. During investigation, on 10.09.2020, a cell phone belonging to one Brahmam, salesman of government retail outlet of Lemalle village was handed over to one Ch. Geetha, Sub-Inspector, Pedakurapadu (henceforth referred as ‘victim’) through Assistant Excise Superintendent as part of duty.

5. The petitioner, being a superior officer, instructed the Sub-Inspector to send the screenshots of the liquor bottles, content in the cell phone and copy the same into a compact disk. It is alleged that the content in the cell phone contained explicit sexual photos and videos of women. The victim was disturbed on seeing the content in the mobile. Thereupon, she lodged a complaint to the second respondent through her husband on 11.09.2020 on the ground of sexual harassment, stating that the content which was required to be copied from the cell phone of salesman – Brahmam was objectionable and it amounts to sexual harassment. It is stated that the petitioner was not provided with a copy of complaint in the enquiry process, as mandated under Rule 7 of the Rules. The petitioner pointed out that, under Section 9(1) of the Act, only the aggrieved woman has to file a complaint and in case of her physical or mental incapacity or death, the family members can make a complaint.

6. Basing on the complaint, the petitioner was relieved from duties on the same day i.e. 11.09.220 and attached to second respondent/Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau. The second respondent constituted a three member committee, which is allegedly contrary to the provisions of the Act. The said committee submitted a report to the second respondent, which was in-turn forwarded to the first respondent for necessary action. Basing on the said report, the first respondent placed the petitioner under suspension without considering several representations of the petitioner.

7. The petitioner alleges that the enquiry which is conducted by the Special Committee is contrary to the provisions of the Act, since it is constituted specially for the purpose of enquiry against this petitioner. It is submitted that, as per G.O.Rt.No.1530 dated 12.07.2018, Internal Complaints Committee is formed under the Act in respect of General Administration Department and as per proceedings in Rc.No.81/2018/A1 dated 19.04.2018, Internal Complaints Committee is constituted in Prohibition and Excise Department. The term of these committees is three years and they still exist. The petitioner contends that, when the two committees are officially formed and existing, formation of another Special