ORDER:

The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

and without jurisdiction.=

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as ISC Head (Chief Manager) in the Salary Grade VI in the first respondent company after due process of selection on 12.03.2010 and was posted at Vijayawada Branch and he served for almost nine years. While so, basing on a complaint given by some third parties, who have enmity against the petitioner, under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2012, the 1st respondent constituted an Internal Committee to look into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and some other persons. The Internal Committee conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 03.09.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his objections on 15.09.2018 to the findings given by the Internal Committee denying the allegations and the procedure adopted by the Internal Committee in concluding the enquiry in a biased manner. Without considering the objections and basing on the findings given by the Internal Committee, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dated 14.11.2018 terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect, which is purely basing on the enquiry conducted by the Internal Committee, under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, without even issuing any charge memo or without even conducting disciplinary enquiry against him. The termination of services is, in fact, a major punishment, which cannot be imposed without conducting a separate departmental enquiry or without affording an opportunity of hearing or issuing a separate charge memo. In fact, the Internal Committee conducted the enquiry in the absence of complainant. However, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent- Appellate Authority, who dismissed the same on 07.02.2019 confirming the order of termination dated 14.11.2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

The respondents 1 to 3 filed their counter opposing

maintainability of the writ petition as it is in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, more particularly, in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (AIR 1981 SC 487 (LB)) and in a recent judgment in Ramakrishna Mission and another v. Kago Kunya and others (Civil Appeal No.2394 of 2019 (SLP (C) 3092 of 2018) and requested to dismiss the writ petition on the sole ground of its maintainability by taking it as primary objection.

The respondents further stated that while the petitioner was working as Assistant Vice President and SBG Head at Vijayawada, one of the woman employees namely Sridivya Sangadi made a complaint against Sai Krishna and V. Chittibabu, co-employees of the petitioner, alleging sexual harassment, but, the petitioner being the head of the branch, had kept quiet without initiating any action. But, the said employee made a complaint against the petitioner and the other two persons to the 1st respondent alleging sexual harassment and failure of the petitioner to provide safety environment to woman employees in work place. The 1st respondent took the cognizance of the complaint under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and accordingly, constituted an Internal Committee for conducting inquiry under the provisions of the Act. The said Committee, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to make necessary objections, submitted its report, pursuant to which the competent authority issued the impugned proceedings terminating the services of the petitioner, which is affirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The respondents further stated that the allegation that the person, who gave complaint, was not present before the Committee, is not correct. In fact, the Committee has taken note of the complaint dated 16.03.2018 ad