Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 3948
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RAJIV SHAKDHER, ABDUL QUDDHOSE, JJ.
R.Umamaheswari – Petitioner
Vs.
The Registrar General, High Court of Madras and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.13504 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009
Decided On : 02-11-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.T. Varadarajan
For the Respondent: Mr. Ramachandra Moorthy for Mr. E.K. Kumaresan
Headnote:
Civil Laws – Issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus – Back-wages – Writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent made in R.O.C. modifying the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement under the order passed by the second respondent in R.O.C.No.149/2006/A1, dated 13.09.2007 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and back-wages and other attendant benefits – Held, Complainant Judicial Officer lodged the complaint against the petitioner for her misbehavior on the same date i.e. on 18.10.2006 itself. The petitioner for the first time in her explanation dated 17.01.2007 has officially, brought on record the fact that the complainant Judicial Officer had misbehaved with her. – Despite several opportunities being given by the Enquiry Officer, including the permission to engage an Advocate, the petitioner did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. – Crucially, P.W.4, Tmt.S.Jayalalitha, Steno-typist, in her deposition, has stated that she was in the Chamber, when the alleged act of sexual harassment is said to have taken place. – It seems P.W.4 does not support the allegation of the petitioner that she was sexually harassed as alleged. – P.W.4 has stated, in her deposition has stated that the complainant Judicial Officer admonished the petitioner for loitering which apparently triggered the outburst by the petitioner. – Subsistence allowance was not paid only due to the non production of non employment certificate by the petitioner. – Second respondent has stated that the petitioner declined to produce the non employment certificate despite request made to her for the production of the same. – Fact that the punishment was modified from dismissal to compulsory retirement by the first respondent, the appellate authority appears to have taken into account the argument that the punishment was disproportionate and at the same time given weight to the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer that the allegation of sexual harassment was palpably inaccurate. – Petitioner does not deserve any further indulgence from this Court and the grounds raised by her in the writ petition do not deserve any merit. – Writ Petition Dismissed.
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent made in R.O.C.No.389/2008/C1, dated 07.07.2008 modifying the punishment of dismissal into compulsory retirement under the order passed by the second respondent in R.O.C.No.149/2006/A1, dated 13.09.2007 and quash the same and consequently, direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and back-wages and other attendant benefits.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
2.1. The petitioner was selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and she was posted as Junior Assistant in the Judicial Ministerial Service at Pattukkottai. She served there from 07.09.2000 to 12.04.2006 for about six years under three Subordinate Judges. Later on she was transferred to Thanjavur and posted as Record Clerk on 13.04.2006 in the Principal Sub Court, Thanjavur. On 18.10.2006, at about 5.15 p.m., the Principal Subordinate Judge, Mr. K. Dhakshinamoorthi, retired to his Chambers after Court work. She went to the chamber to get signature in the return petition and statements. As no one was inside in the Chambers except the Principal Subordinate Judge, she was waiting at the entrance to get permission for going inside. The Judge nodded his head to come inside. Thereafter, she went inside the Chambers and to the shock and surprise, when she showed the return petition and statements, the Judge pulled her hand. She was shocked and shouted at him and further she said that she will give a complaint to the higher authorities for such misbehavior and she came out with weeping eyes from his Chamber to report to the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur. But, she was not given permission to meet the Principal District Judge/second respondent immediately as she was informed by the Personal Assistant to the Principal District Judge that she could met the Principal District Judge only after Ramzan. Hence, she returned to the office on the same day without giving complaint to the concerned authorities.
2.2. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, in order to suppress what had happened on 18.10.2006 at 05.30 p.m. in his Chambers, gave a false complaint against the petitioner on 20.10.2006, which was ante dated as 18.10.2006, as if she has committed dereliction of duty by misbehaving with him and caused disturbance to his work. In the said complaint, the Principal Subordinate Judge has stated that at the time of occurrence, the steno-typist was present.
2.3. Based on the false complaint given by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, without conducting any enquiry, she was placed under suspension by an order dated 25.10.2006. Thereafter, by an order dated 26.10.2006, the second respondent appointed the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur as enquiry officer to enquire the complaint dated 18.10.2006.
2.4. The petitioner was surprised that the second respondent appointed the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur as enquiry officer. Therefore, the petitioner gave a representation dated 10.11.2006 pointing out the irregularity and opposed the Principal Subordinate Judge, who is the complainant from being appointed as enquiry officer. After the objection of the petitioner, the order appointing the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur as enquiry officer was withdrawn by order dated 05.12.2006.
2.5. Thereafter, the Principal District Judge by letter dated 11.12.2006, called for explanation from the petitioner on the complaint given by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavaur against her, for which, she requested the Principal District Judge to furnish a copy of the complaint given by the Principal Subordinate Judge by a letter dated 16.12.2006. After getting a copy of the complaint, she submitted her explanation on 17.01.2007 explaining in detail about the incident that had happened on 18.10.2006.
2.6. Despit
