PRADEEPKUMAR G Vs. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF BIO TECHNOLOGY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Scientist G in the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Bio Technology, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P7 order retaining him under suspension and Ext.P17 memo of charges issued to him.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he has been working under the 1st respondent for more than 2 decades. He is a Ph.D holder in Bio Technology. 17 students have already completed Ph.D under him and 8 students are undergoing Ph.D under him; apart from that several post doctoral fellows have already undergone training under him. He is a reviewer of international journals and has secured several awards in recognition of his contribution towards Bio Technology. While working in the Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Bio Technology (hereinafter referred to as 'the Centre') , he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order pursuant to a crime registered against him in Poojapura Police Station based on a complaint of one Rajeev.R.V, a Laboratory Assistant in the Centre alleging that he ignored him since he belonged to Scheduled caste community and he insulted him referring to his caste name and thus acted in contravention of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1980. The petitioner challenged the FIR registered before the Poojapura Police Station, Trivandrum in Crl.M.C.No.3977 of 2017 and this Court as per Ext.P2 order quashed the same. In the Crl.M.C the petitioner alleged that the complainant was only a tool in the hands of the 2nd respondent and that the 2nd respondent and persons interested in seeing that the petitioner is not appointed as Director of the Centre for which selection was due, were behind this move. The contention of the petitioner was accepted by this Court. Immediately after the FIR was quashed by Ext.P2 order, the complainant submitted Ext.P11 complaint before the 2nd respondent on 11.09.2017, with a slight change in the averments. Even though the substance of this complaint also was that the petitioner called him by caste name and had been harassing him, in the first complaint the allegation was that the petitioner harassed him inside the cabin. In Ext.P11 the complainant's allegation was that the petitioner harassed him by calling his caste name.

(3.) The petitioner points out that the FIR was quashed on the ground that there was no allegation that any incident alleged by the complainant occurred in public. Allegation was that the incident occurred inside the cabin of the petitioner and the complainant did not have a case that anyone saw or heard what transpired there. The petitioner, who was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order pursuant to the crime registered against him, was retained under suspension by the 2nd respondent by issuing Ext.P7 order dt.12.9.2017. In fact Ext.P1 order of suspension was extended for a further period of 90 days as per Ext.P6 order on 01.09.2017 w.e.f 6.9.2017. Ext.P7 order was passed after the crime registered against him was quashed.