ANUPRITA S BHADAGE Vs. NAGPUR COLLEGE OF HOMEOPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal application has been taken out by the applicants (petitioners)with a prayer to drop the holding of enquiry in accordance with order made by this Court on 30/4/2007 in Criminal Writ petition No. 163/2006. Though none of the respondents filed reply to this application, shri M. G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents and learned A. P. P. for State of Maharashtra opposed the application during the course of hearing of the present application.

(2.) In support of the application, Shri Z. A. Haq, learned Counsel appearing for applicants contended that the applicants who were employees working with respondent no. 2 - College had suffered the agony of sexual harassment by the members of the management of the College including the president so also the superiors. According to him since there was lacuna on the part of the criminal investigation machinery in not taking action for the offences committed by them despite serious allegation of sexual harassment etc. , the Writ Petition no. 163/2006 was filed for necessary directions. He then argued that relief was sought in the petition in terms of the pronouncement of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishakha Vs. State of Rajasthan,1997 DGLS 1045 on the subject and this Court having prima facie found substance in the averments made by the petitioners made an order dated 30. 4. 2007 and appointed an independent committee to make enquiry. The committee was to be headed by Ms. Indira Jain, district Judge, Nagpur. The petitioners also submitted their respective complaints to the chairman of the said Committee and before the Committee would start enquiry, Ms. Jain expressed her inability to conduct enquiry on the ground that she stood transferred to Yavatmal as Principal District judge. Thereafter, Ms T. D. Patel was appointed as chairman of the enquiry committee but then she also expressed her unwillingness to hold enquiry. Ultimately, the enquiry could not begin. During this interdiction, according to Advocate Shri Haq, subsequent events took place inasmuch as the petitioners got orders from the competent Authority regarding their reinstatement in service for their wrongful termination. Those orders are put to challenge by the management and various cases are now pending in this Court as well. In the meanwhile, criminal cases in relation to the charges for sexual harassment etc. which were filed before the Magistrate are also being taken up and even charge is being framed against the accused persons. Advocate Shri Haq, therefore, argued that in the light of these developments the petitioners have prayed to this Court to give full point to the matter by not further constituting the enquiry committee and holding enquiry in accordance with order of this Court dated 30. 4. 2007.

(3.) After going through the entire record and after hearing learned Counsel for the rival parties, we do not find any want of bona fides in the request made by the petitioners for dropping the enquiry committee. It cannot be forgotten that the said order dated 30. 4. 2007 was passed at the instance of the petitioners. The first enquiry committee could not even start functioning due to transfer of the learned District Judge from Nagpur to Yavatmal. The second enquiry committee also could not function due to the unwillingness communicated by dr. T. D. Patel. In other words, factually enquiry even did not start. In the meanwhile, on the same nature of allegations charge-sheets were filed in the Court of J. M. F. C. and the said Court is now likely to take up those cases against the accused persons. In so far as employment of the petitioners is concerned, the litigation is also pending. In such a situation the petitioners do not desire to have an enquiry committee and enquiry with which we do not find any fault, since we do not find any want of bona fides in them to do so. Some of the grounds raised in the application in question may not be valid grounds but then practical view of the matter will have to be taken and we do not think that in the fact situation in the present case there is any point in compelling the parties to have enquiry by the enquiry committee in accordance with the order of this Court dated 30/4/2007. After all, we will have to be pragmatic in our approach and we do not think that we are denuded of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to recall the said order dated 30/4/2007 and drop the enquiry committee. In view of the above, following order would make the ends of justice.