HRISHIKESH VASANTRAO KUMBHAR Vs. ZILLA PARISAD SANGALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

(2.) By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 14 December 2015, by which the Respondents have suspended the Petitioner from its services. The ground as set out in the suspension order is that the Petitioner had agreed to marry the complainant, one Ms. Yasmin Hazarat Makandar and that the Petitioner did not marry her and got married with some other girl. The other reasons as they appeared in the complaint are also set out in the suspension order.

(3.) When we heard the matter on the last occasion, we had expressed to the learned counsel for the Respondents that the reasons which are set out in the suspension order, prima facie appeared to be not sustainable, inasmuch as the nature of the complaint was nothing to do with the discharge of the duties by the Petitioner in the employment. The grievance of the complainant appeared to be wholly a private issue, interse between the complainant and the Petitioner. Further, as also the nature of the complaint was of some charges, the nature of which was sexual harassment at work place, we had inquired with Mr. Rane, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, as to whether any procedure as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(1997) 6 SCC 241=AIR 1997 SC 3011 has been followed by the Respondents? The matter was accordingly adjourned for today.