JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. S.Rajeetchandra. learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.Rupachandra Singh for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Mr. N. Jotendro, learned counsel the respondent no.4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the enquiry pending against him. Various grounds have been raised by the petitioner in contending that the enquiry in the present state cannot continue. It has been contended, inter alia, that the statutory period for completion of the enquiry initiated against the petitioner under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 as provided under Section 11 (4) mandating completion of enquiry under Section 11(1) within a period of ninety days, has long been breached. The petitioner contends that the enquiry which was initiated in February 2015 has dragged on incomplete for more than a year, and having crossed the statutory limit cannot be legally permitted to continue and must be brought to an end. His other contentions are that because of the inordinate delay in concluding the enquiry, his promotional prospects have been also jeopardised. He also has alleged various other irregularities in the aforesaid enquiry apart from mala fide on the part of the authorities.

3. The writ petition has been vigorously resisted by the official as well as the private respondents. While the averments and allegations in the writ petition have been specifically denied by the respondents, the respondents have taken a common plea that the present writ petition is not maintainable before this High Court on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

4. If this objection of the respondents is upheld, obviously, there would not be any necessity to go into the merit of the case so as to examine the various issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition which will left to be decided by the competent Court or forum.

5. Since, this issue of lack of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this writ petition has been raised, it should be determined first for which this Court needs to refer to the relevant facts to decide this issue.

6. The petitioner alleges as reflected in the pleadings that while the petitioner was posted as a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) in the Central Reserve Police (CRPF) in Jammu & Kashmir in 2014, he unearthed certain scam in the procurement of ration articles, liquor and pilferage of kerosene oil in Srinagar sector and was taking preventive measures and preparing to take departmental actions, a complaint of sexual harassment was filed by the Respondent no.4 on 17.1.2015 against the Deputy Commandant under the petitioner accusing the petitioner of abetting the same. Consequently, an Enquiry Committee was constituted on 2.2.2015 to look into the matter. On being notified of the same, the petitioner pointed out various irregularities in the action initiated against him, the details of which may not be necessary at this stage to be referred to. He also alleged that because of this malicious allegation against him which is yet to be proved, the higher authorities have made adverse remarks in his annual reports jeopardising his promotional prospects. The petitioner then proceeds to state his grounds for challenging this enquiry initiated against him and filing this writ petition. No further relevant facts are spelt out in the writ petition.

7. Article 226 of the Constitution confers jurisdiction to the High Court to issue directions, writs, orders throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction for enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III of the Constitution and for any other purpose. Clause (2) of Article 226 provides that the power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document