The court held that dual conflicting enquiry reports undermine the validity of sexual harassment findings, thus necessitating the quashing of subsequent administrative actions against the accused.

ORDER :

1. The Writ Petition has been filed for an issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned enquiry report in Na.Ka. No.585/A1/ 2020 by the 3^rd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal.

2. The present Writ Petition has got a checkered history. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

(i) The petitioner, who joined in a service as a Agricultural Officer, commenced his service on 07.05.1986 had unblemished records, hence promoted and held various positions and finally promoted to the post of Assistant Director of Agriculture. While the petitioner was serving as an Assistant Director of Agriculture, the 6^th respondent seems to have joined the service as Agricultural officer on 23.01.2017.

(ii) It is the further case of the petitioner that the 6^th respondent ever since joined the duty as agricultural officer her performance was below average, especially with the execution of provisions of Insecticides Act, wherein which the 6^th respondent seems to have provided false statement claiming herself as if she inspected the Insecticide Shops collected samples and prepared reports, which was not true. When the petitioner being an officer superior to the 6^th respondent had reprimanded her for the inability to perform the duties of an agricultural officer, the 6^th respondent produced false inspection report without collecting proper samples from the inspected shops and created false entries without collecting the samples and the report was filed by the 6^th respondent, as if she has conducted inspection, which made the petitioner being superior officer, to send a detailed report to the superior, i.e. the Joint Director of Agriculture about the performance of the 6^th respondent, which according to the petitioner has made the 6^th respondent to hold grudge against the petitioner and to wreck vengeance against the petitioner. Therefore, the 6^th respondent filed a false allegation against the petitioner and made a complaint on 28.11.2017 to the 2^nd respondent.

(iii) In turn, the 2^nd respondent had forwarded the complaint to the 3^rd respondent and the same was taken for investigation under the prevention of Sexual harassment of Women at work place [Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal] Act, 2013, [for brevity, referred as 'Act, 2013'], which was investigated by the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent upon conducting the enquiry, submitted a report to the 3^rd respondent and the 3^rd respondent dismissed the complaint on the basis of local committee's report dated 03.05.2019. In the said report it was categorically observed that there are no indication of sexual harassment and the complaint itself is to wreck malafide as against petitioner.

(iii) The 6^th respondent had challenged the said report in W.P.No.11492 of 2022 on the allegation that the provision of Act, 2013 were not followed by the 3^rd respondent. This Court by an order dated 30.08.2023 had allowed the writ petition, thereby setting aside the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent and directed the 3^rd respondent to constitute a local committee to enquire into the allegation made by the 6^th respondent within a month and directed the local committee to complete the enquiry following the procedures contemplated under Act. This Court made it clear that the enquiry shall be confined only in respect of the allegations made in the complaint dated 28.11.2017 and not beyond that.

(iv) Thereafter the 6^th respondent approached this Court, once again in W.P.No.16195 of 2024 seeking for a direction to direct the 2^nd respondent to constitute the internal complaints committee / local complaints com