Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, T.C.D. SEKHAR, JJ.
Syed Makhbul Ahmed S/o Syed Ahmed Basha - Appellant
Versus
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No.2298 of 2023
Decided on : 22-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. description of charges against the petitioner (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. details of the complainant’s allegations and incidents (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. procedural requirements under act 14 of 2013 (Para 15 , 16 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. discrepancies in complainant's statements (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. court’s order for reinstatement (Para 35) |
ORDER:
R.Raghunandan Rao, J.
Heard Sri M. Vijay Kumar, Learned senior counsel representing Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. B. Vasantha Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner had been appointed as Record Assistant in the year 1987 and was promoted as Superintendent in the year 2014. He was working as such in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni, Kakinada District, till he was dismissed from service on 21.06.2021.
3. The petitioner was issued a charge Memo, dated 07.08.2019, leveling 7 charges against him. They are –
| Charge No.1 | That the petitioner used to touch and hold the hands of the complainant while she signs the attendance register. |
| Charge No.2 | That the petitioner on one Saturday forcibly caught hold the hand of the complainant and pulled her towards the petitioner due to which the complainant got nail scratches over her left hand and the said acts are witnessed by the Court staff and one advocate. |
| Charge No.3 | The petitioner has threatened the complainant on the same day evening over telephone. |
| Charge No.4 | That the petitioner threatened the side attender Gowri Shankar and made him to go on leave. |
| Charge No.5 | That the petitioner tried to foist a false case of theft against the complainant along with one Attender by name Ratnamala. |
| Charge No.6 | That the petitioner threatened the complainant that the petitioner would involve the husband of the complainant in a criminal with the aid of the police using the number of the Auto rikshaw run by her husband. |
| Charge No.7 | That the petitioner intentionally avoided to make entries in the service register of the complainant and also postponed the annual increments for two months. |
4. These charges came to be framed against the petitioner on the basis of a report, dated 27-07-2019, forwarded by the Chairman, Internal Complaints Committee to the disciplinary authority, in pursuance of an enquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee. After receipt of the show cause notice and charge memo, the petitioner filed his statement of defense in which he is said to have highlighted the violations committed by the Internal Complaints Committee through its enquiry.
5. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, appointed an enquiry officer and presenting officer, on 17.12.2019. The enquiry was conducted between January and April, 2021, during which, witnesses on behalf of prosecution had been examined. The petitioner contends that he was not permitted to bring his defense witnesses. The enquiring authority submitted his report, on 03.04.2021, holding that charges 1 to 3 are proved and charges 4 to 7 are not proved. The petitioner was served with the enquiry report, along with a notice, calling upon the petitioner to submit his written representation in relation to the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his written explanation. However, the 2nd respondent is said to have issued orders on 21.06.2021, dismissing the petitioner from service.
6. The petitioner had thereupon filed an appeal, before the High Court, on 12.09.2021 and the same came to be dismissed, on 22.07.2022. The petitioner also contends that the appeal order does not contain any reasons.
7. It is necessary to set out the facts in the present case, before assessing the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner.―On 04.08.2017, a complaint was given by a lady employee, to the District Judge, Rajahmundry. In this complaint, it was stated that the petitioner herein had been harassing the complainant. She stated that the petitioner was holding her hands and asking her for a kiss, whenever she went t
AI
Procedural violations in workplace harassment enquries breach principles of natural justice, resulting in unjust dismissal.
The main legal point established is that the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee must be a higher level woman officer in accordance with Section 4(2)(a) of the Sexual Harassment of....
It is also settled law that if the rule requires something to be done in a particular manner it should be done either in the same manner or not at all.
The court emphasized that procedural safeguards and principles of natural justice must be strictly adhered to in disciplinary inquiries against probationers, including the right to be heard and to cr....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to statutory provisions, conducting fair and independent enquiries, and upholding principles of natural justice in cases of sexual harassment at the....
The court established that disciplinary action under Section 14 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act requires a finding of malicious intent or knowledge of falsity, which was not presen....
A disciplinary inquiry must adhere to statutory procedural requirements, but procedural irregularities that do not affect substantive rights or show prejudice do not warrant judicial intervention, pa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
