V S JAITHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are women employees in the office of the Accountant General (A and E) Kerala, the 5th respondent herein. In this writ petition the petitioners challenge initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them as evidenced by Ext. P7 to P16 under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). They also contend that Ext. P5 which is a communication issued from the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, evidencing a disinclination to conduct further enquiry into Ext. P1 complaint lodged by the petitioners before the Chair person, Committee for Redressal of Sexual Harassment on Working Women, Officer of the Accountant General, is illegal and requires interference by this court inter alia for the reason that it is in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 (SC) 3011 ). The petitioners also seek a writ of mandamus to the Union of India to appoint a lady IPC Officer to enquire into Ext. P1 complaint of sexual harassment, lodged by the petitioners against the 5th respondent (who is eo nominee impleaded as the 4th respondent)

(2.) WHEN the writ petition came up for admission, I felt a doubt as to the maintainability of the writ petition before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia on the premise that the petitioners and the 5th respondent are employees having the status of Central Government Employees and the dispute between the petitioners and the 5th respondent would otherwise be cognizable by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) functioning under the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985. I requested the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on whom notice of the writ petition had been served, to address this court on this issue. Accordingly, Sri. G. Janardhana Kurup, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri. K. R. B. Kaimal learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents essentially addressed this court on the question as to whether the writ petition is maintainable before this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SINCE I am dealing with the question of jurisdiction in the first instance, I deem it unnecessary to embark upon a detailed appreciation of the facts or the rival contentions of the parties as regards the correctness of the proceedings, which are impugned in this writ petition. The petitioners who are employees in the office of the Accountant General contend that the entire employees at the office of the Accountant General were aggrieved by his move to outsource the work relating to 'one rank one pension' scheme and this had led to the situation where disciplinary action was apparently initiated by the 5th respondent against one Santhose Kumar, an employee of the office of the Accountant General. This led to a dhama in the portico of the Accountant General's office on 19. 12. 2006. The Accountant General on his return to the office after lunch allegedly created an embarrassing scene by cutting across the lines maintained by the women employees sitting at the northern end of varandha in the portico, that he crossed over their legs and stamped with his booted feet on the clothes of a lady and several others. There is also an allegation that he took out a mobile phone and started taking photographs of the lady employees from different angles while he was still in their midst. The conduct of the 5th respondent was outrageous to the modesty and dignity of women and it constituted sexual harassment as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Vishaka's case. Ext. P1 complaint was lodged before the Chair person of the Committee for Redressal of Sexual Harassment on Working Women functioning in the office of the 5th respondent. Apparently, the complaint was forwarded to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, New Delhi. The contention is that the Committee for Redressal of Sexual Harassment on Working Women, which is the body constituted in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court should have looked into the correctness of the complaint and then take further action on the same. But in the instant case it was forwarded to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, from where it was apparently rejected as evidenced by Ext. P5 holding that Ext. P1 complaint does not come within the purview of sexual harassment of working women at their work place. Ext. P5 is one of the communications challenged in this writ petition.