B LAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the proceedings against the petitioners-A1 to A5 in Crime No. 64 of 2012 of Kazipet Police Station, Warangal District, registered for the offences under Sections 3(1)(ix) and (x) and 4 of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The second respondent herein is the complainant. The factual matrix of the case is that the second respondent herein by name P. Pruthvi filed a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the IV Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate at Warangal. In the complaint it is the case of the second respondent that she had initially joined as Lecturer in ECE Department in the year 1997 and thereafter she was promoted as Assistant Professor. Petitioner No. 1 is Head to her. It is further stated that since from the date of joining as Lecturer, she has been facing discrimination from petitioner No. 1. It is also stated that when she was carrying, she applied for maternity leave, and petitioner No. 1 did not grant the leave initially and after confirmation by the doctor only, she was granted leave. It is also stated that Petitioner No. 1 made her to stand in front of her by putting her legs in her chair and treated the second respondent with discrimination intentionally as she belongs to Scheduled Caste and a disparity has been maintained and she was not tolerated and has been got insulted. Petitioner No. 1 insulted her taking the name of her caste that "Prithvi is an SC, she has head weight and thinks that she is fair and beautiful". It is further stated that petitioner No. 1 did not allow the second respondent to sit in her classes and whenever she forcibly sit in the class, petitioner No. 1 would say that "if this lady (complainant) is sitting in my class I don't take class" and cancelled the classes. It is also stated that the second respondent bearing all the humiliation taken up examination of SDSD subject in M.Tech, for which petitioner No. 1 intentionally found fault with her answers. It is further stated that the second respondent represented to the authorities with several letters, dated 17-07-2002, 05-07-2002, 20-09-2002 and 09-10-2002, but the administration failed to curb the psychotic and sadistic behaviour of petitioner No. 1, and have taken the help of Court which ordered REC authorities to send the answer scripts of the second respondent to three other IIT's for correction. It is further stated that the upper caste senior staff are misusing the powers and are intentionally depriving the rights of the second respondent, who belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is further alleged that the petitioners, being in the position of Head of Department and Members of Board of Governors and Committee Members, had violated the Rules by recommending the name of one Sri P. Muralidhar, ECE Department, for Senior Lecturer scale and gave double promotion of selection grade directly from Lecturer to Associate Professor by giving wrong information of the said Muralidhar appearing for CAS-2004, CAS-2006 and CAS-2007 and discriminated her since she belongs to Scheduled Caste and that the fourth petitioner informed her that if at all she is aggrieved, she can go to Court, High Court, CAT(Tribunal), or SC/ST Commission, nothing comes to her rescue because they did it with a plan that no legal action can be taken against the administration. It is further alleged that though CAS-2009 was closed by 22-03-2012, the petitioners issued supplementary appointment orders to Sri K. Ananda Kishore and Sri S. Srinath of Chemical Department on 18-04-2012 under CAS even though they are not eligible and the same was denied to her as she belong to Scheduled Caste community. It is further stated that the administration has not moved a little finger though the second respondent went on hunger strike from 19-04-2012 and hence the complaint. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to the Station House Officer, Kazipet Police Station, for investigation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners-A1 to A5 filed the present petition to quash the proceedings against them in the said crime.

(2.) Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are working in the cadre of Associate Professor, Professor and Director of the National Institute of Technology at Warangal and are leading respectable life in society and they are falsely implicated in this crime even though they are nothing to do with the alleged offence. He further argued that the second respondent filed the complaint stating the facts from the date of her joining in the National Institution of Technology at Warangal till date only to impress that it is a genuine case, but in fact the said facts are not necessary and relevant for lodging the complaint and that she is in the habit of filing false complaints against the authorities taking advantage of the caste under the provisions of the Act and that on the earlier occasion also, she filed W.P. No. 22503 of 2002 before this Court alleging that she was discriminated as she belongs to SC community and also prayed for sending her answer script to other agencies for evaluation and ultimately the outside agency also confirmed the marks awarded by the original committee and finally the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

(3.) The learned counsel further argued that the petitioners are not at all concerned with CAS-2009 committee and the said committee was appointed by the Board of Governors, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, for recommending the names of the eligible candidates under the scheme in various departments including ECE Department and the said committee, basing on the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commission, evaluated the individual merit and eligibility of all candidates and accordingly recommended the names; and petitioner No. 5 is the Chairman of the said Committee and petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 have no role to play in the said committee and even petitioner No. 5 also has no control over the other members of the Committee and the recommendations were made in accordance with the guidelines and eligibility criteria fixed by the UGC.