ORDER

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 25.6.2018 (Annexure R-1) and the enquiry report dated 25.7.2018 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner was held guilty for committing sexual harassment at the workplace.

2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the petitioner was working as Station House Officer (SHO), in Police Station Gadarwara, District Narsinghpur between 27.8.2016 to 24.3.2017. During that period, respondent No.7 was posted in the said police station as SubInspector.

3. As per the stand of the petitioner, the petitioner was an officer supervising the work and duties of respondent No.7. Since respondent No.7 committed dereliction of duty on more than one occasion, certain orders taking coercive action were passed which are filed cumulatively as Annexure P-2. Respondent No.7 as an after thought preferred a frivolous complaint dated 16.3.2017 alleging that petitioner committed sexual harassment in the workplace. Pursuant to the complaint dated 16.3.2017 (Annexure P-4), an internal complaint committee was constituted as per the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), 2013 (Act of 2013). The internal committee consisting of five members conducted the inquiry, recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the report on 26.5.2017 and opined that the allegations against the petitioner for committing sexual harassment in workplace are not established.

4. The respondent No.7 preferred an application against the aforesaid report of internal complain committee dated 24.5.2017. On 25.12.2017 (Annexure P-10) the departmental authority came to hold that allegation of sexual harassment could not be established against the petitioner.

5. Shri Samresh Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to another report dated 25.7.2018 (Annexure P1) whereby another inquiry report was prepared wherein charges were found to be proved against the petitioner. This report is founded upon the direction issued by the Police Headquarter dated 25.6.2018 (Annexure R-1).

6. Shri Katare, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced four fold submissions to assail the impugned orders. Firstly, it is submitted that in the teeth of section 9 of the Act of 2013, since the alleged incident of sexual harassment had taken place on 12.10.2016 and the complaint was preferred after the statutory period prescribed on 16.3.2017 and there was no conscious decision taken by any authority to condone the delay, complaint itself was not entertainable. It is further submitted that the date of incident can be gathered from the supplementary statement of respondent No.7 (page-136).

7. Secondly, as per section 18 of the Act of 2013, the appeal could have been preferred against the report dated 26.5.2017 to the Tribunal/ Court as per the Service Rules. The reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court reported in 2014(2) MPLJ 500 (Ramesh Pal v. Union of India and Ors.) wherein it was held that the appropirate remedy is to approach the Tribunal / Court as per the service matters.

8. Thirdly, the Police Headquarter by communication dated 25.6.2018 (Annexure R/1) directed the ADGP (Accounts) to conduct another enquiry. In obedience thereof, the said authority conducted the enquiry and submitted the impugned report dated 25.7.2018. There exists no enabling provision under the Act of 2013 to conduct any further enquiry at the direction of the Police Headquarter. In absence thereof, the enquiry report is bad in law.

9. Fourthly, the enquiry report is based on no evidence and it is based on the guess work of the Inquiring Authority. For these cumulative reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be axed.

10. Per contra, Shri Pankaj Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned order and placed reliance on the return. Shri Dhanesh Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.7 borrowed the same argument and urged that no fault can be found in the order