INDULEKHA K. Vs. RUBBER BOARD OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that inspite of certain unsavory incidents occurred in the office, at the hands of an officer by name Smt. Sindhu Narayanan, making her suffer great amount of mental stress and pain, no action has been taken by the competent authority of the Rubber Board even after she had made Exhibit P1 complaint and Exhibit P3 reminder.

(2.) The petitioner says that the words used by Smt. Sindhu Narayanan against her were demeaning and intended to project her in a very bad light and therefore, that the Rubber Board had a duty to take appropriate action against her. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the respondents be directed to initiate disciplinary action against the afore mentioned Smt. Sindhu Narayanan and that Exhibit P4 communication of the Vigilance Officer of the Rubber Board be set aside, since it appears to close her compliant merely saying "Exchange of words in anger cannot be ground for initiating disciplinary proceedings. I agree the matter should have been handled tactfully by Jt.RPC and issue settled amicably instead of allowing it to attain the hands of bad vibes and complaint."(Sic).

(3.) In response to the afore submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. P.G. Jayashankar, learned Standing Counsel for the Rubber Board, Sri. Isaac Thomas, submitted that the allegations of the petitioner are not correct and that her complaint has been properly looked into and disposed of through Exhibits R1(a) and R1(b)-Advisory Notes issued by the Executive Director. He submitted that, as is evident from the said documents, the conduct of Smt. Sindhu Narayanan has been taken note of and she has been advised "to exercise due care and diligence and restrain from using words/phrases which have the potential for hurting her colleagues".(Sic). He thus prayed that this writ petition be closed.