Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 524
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
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Workplace Harassment
Act Referred
ANDHRA PRADESH CIVIL SERVICES CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL AND APPEAL RULES: R.20(4)
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a government employee, was dismissed from service based on allegations of harassment towards a female colleague, following an enquiry that lacked procedural fairness and did not allow the petitioner to defend himself adequately. (Paras 3, 5, 10)
Findings of Court:
The enquiry was found to be non-compliant with the procedural requirements set forth in the Act and he was not afforded a fair opportunity to defend against the charges. The discrepancies in the complainant’s testimony were significant enough to undermine the findings of the enquiry officer. (Paras 26, 30, 34)
Issues: Whether the enquiry conducted against the petitioner adhered to the mandated procedures under the Act and if the disciplinary action was justified given the discrepancies in the complainant’s statements. (Paras 3, 28)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that procedural fairness is paramount in disciplinary proceedings. The lack of opportunity for the petitioner to defend himself and the procedural lapses by the enquiry committee resulted in a flawed process, making the dismissal unjustified. (Paras 15, 33)
Result: Writ petition allowed; dismissal order set aside and the petitioner directed to be reinstated without back wages.
For the Appellant : Sri M. Vijay Kumar Sr. Counsel Rep. Sri Manoj Kumar Bethapudi
For the Respondents: Smt. B. Vasantha Lakshmi
| 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
