NAGARAM BALAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the 2nd respondent in proposing to conduct enquiry against the petitioner stating that the same is contrary to the order dtd. 23/3/2021 passed in W.P.No.24885 of 2020 and also to hold that the charge memo that was issued on 4/8/2021 is contrary to law as the signatory does not have the jurisdiction. This Court has heard Sri G. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute in this case. Sri Ramesh Babu submits that the enquiry sought to be initiated against the petitioner cannot be continued in view of the findings of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.24885 of 2020. He points out that the petitioner, who was working as an Enforcement Superintendent, took up investigation and registered a crime in the Special Enforcement Bureau Station, Pedakurapadu, and a mobile phone belonging to a person was seized. It was handed over to one Smt. Ch.Geetha, Sub-Inspector, who is his subordinate, for the purpose of taking a copy of all the data in the phone. It was found that the phone contained sexually explicit material. Basing on the same the husband of the subordinate gave a complaint that his wife was being sexually harassed and that the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 (in short "the Act-2013") applies to the facts and circumstances.

(3.) Learned counsel points out that this issue of applicability of Act 2013 was decided by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.24885 of 2020, wherein the learned single Judge held that the act of requesting his subordinate to copy the alleged incriminating material is not sexual harassment etc. He points out that a detailed judgment was written, wherein it was held that the same is not sexual harassment; that the husband has no locus standi to lodge a complaint and that the suspension etc., is bad. Learned counsel points out that in view of these findings the subsequent enquiry into the same cannot be allowed to be proceeded. He also submits that the signatory to the G.O.Rt.No.1275, dtd. 4/8/2021 is not the appointing authority for the petitioner and that the proceedings, therefore, are without jurisdiction. He relies upon the Division Bench judgment reported in W.P.No.8455 of 2019 and a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.9913 of 2021 in support of his contention.