IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dipankar Datta, M.S. Sonak, JJ.
Dr. Prashant Natekar - Appellant
Versus
State of Goa - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 198 of 2021
Decided On : 05-08-2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER
DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ. - This writ petition, instituted on 22/1/2021, challenges an order dtd. 19/6/2017 issued by the Secretary (Health-1), Public Health Department, Government of Goa. The order reads as follows:
"ORDER
Whereas, Inquiry against Dr. Prashant E. Natekar, Professor and Head of the Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College, Bambolim - Goa, is being contemplated and Dr. Prashant E. Natekar, Professor and Head of the Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College, Bambolim shall report to Public Health Department, Porvorim, until further Orders. "
2. Several grounds have been urged in support of the relief claimed in the writ petition. The prayers read as follows:
<WXY>"(A) For a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order No. 1 dtd. 19/06/2017, bearing No. 1/15/2016II/PHD, passed by the Under Secretary (Health) who is the Respondent No. 5, with a further direction commanding the Respondent Authorities to recall and cancel the Impugned Order No. 1 and to allow the Petitioner to resume duties in his position as Professor and Head of Department of Anatomy at GMC with all consequential benefits,
(B) For a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the Impugned Order No, 2 dtd. 27/02/2020 bearing No, 5/4/86-11/GMC/9619, passed by the Director (Admn), GMC who is the Respondent No, 3, add back the leaves of 39.5 days to the credit of the Petitioner and to allow the purported 39.5 unauthorized leaves to be regularized as time spent on duty,
(C) For a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order to Pay compensation of Rs.1, 00, 00, 000.00 (Rupees One Crore only) towards mental harassment, embarrassment suffered by the Petitioner as also for depriving him of opportunities for career advancement, completion of the mandated hours under Continuous Medical Education and for being deprived of updating himself with the latest course curriculum/syllabus for the courses offered at GMC.
(CC) For a Writ of Mandamus, or any other writ, direction order in the nature of mandamus to quash and set aside the Undated Inquiry Report submitted by the committee purported to be constituted vide Order dtd. 27/7/2020, and all a decisions, proceedings and enquiries made/held on the basis of the said undated Inquiry Report;
(D) For an amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards costs of the Petition.
(DD) to quash and set aside the proposed fresh inquiry purportedly directed vide Order dtd. 03/08/2021, bearing No. 1/29/2018-C/GMC/175, issued by the Respondent No. 6; "</WXY>
3. Prayers (CC) and (DD) were inserted in the prayer clauses in terms of an order dtd. 8/12/2021 permitting amendment.
4. The facts leading to institution of the writ petition may be noted first. While the petitioner was functioning as the Head of the Department of Anatomy in the Goa Medical College (hereafter "the College " for short), the (added) respondent no.7, was working on the post of Associate Professor in Anatomy in the College. On 7/4/2008, the respondent no.7 complained to the Dean of the College against the petitioner about harassment meted out to her. The allegations leveled by the respondent no.7 against the petitioner were that he is:
<WXY>Guilty of abetting suicide.
Guilty of interfering with Dr. xxx in her personal freedom of awarding good marks to students in examinations.
Guilty of insulting and humiliating Dr. xxx in front of her students and her colleagues.
Guilty of intimidating Dr. xxx with raised hands and shouting at the top of his voice.
Guilty of causing insistent mental torture through memos and threatening.
Noticeably, none of the allegations pertain to sexual harassment.</WXY>
5. The aforesaid complaint was followed up by the respondent no.7 by a second complaint dtd. 12/11/2008, which had as its subject "Sexual Harassment at Work place ". Of the several allegations that were leveled
Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and Anr.
P.K. Chinnasamy vs. Government of Tamil Nadu and Ors.
Union of India (Uoi) and Ors. vs. Janardhan Debanath and Ors.
The judgment establishes the application of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 in addressing workplace sexual harassment and emphasizes the ....
Point of Law : Service Law – Charge sheet - At the charge sheet stage, the Court will not go into the correctness of the charges. It is for the Inquiry Officer who has been appointed by the Disciplin....
Judicial review of administrative actions is limited; transfers and suspensions are permissible unless proven to be mala fide or against established guidelines.
A transfer order executed without adhering to due process is deemed punitive and illegal, impacting the employee’s rights and entitlements.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of complying with the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice in cases of alleged sexual harassment at the workpla....
: post-decisional opportunity of hearing does not subserve the rules of natural justice. The authority who embarks upon a post-decisional hearing will naturally proceed with a closed mind and there i....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.