RAYALA SATYANARAYANA Vs. SBI FUNDS MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was initially appointed as ISC Head (Chief Manager) in the Salary Grade VI in the first respondent company after due process of selection on 12/3/2010 and was posted at Vijayawada Branch and he served for almost nine years. While so, basing on a complaint given by some third parties, who have enmity against the petitioner, under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2012, the 1st respondent constituted an Internal Committee to look into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and some other persons. The Internal Committee conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 3/9/2018. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his objections on 15/9/2018 to the findings given by the Internal Committee denying the allegations and the procedure adopted by the Internal Committee in concluding the enquiry in a biased manner. Without considering the objections and basing on the findings given by the Internal Committee, the 1st respondent issued proceedings dtd. 14/11/2018 terminating the services of the petitioner with immediate effect, which is purely basing on the enquiry conducted by the Internal Committee, under the provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, without even issuing any charge memo or without even conducting disciplinary enquiry against him. The termination of services is, in fact, a major punishment, which cannot be imposed without conducting a separate departmental enquiry or without affording an opportunity of hearing or issuing a separate charge memo. In fact, the Internal Committee conducted the enquiry in the absence of complainant. However, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the 3rd respondent- Appellate Authority, who dismissed the same on 7/2/2019 confirming the order of termination dtd. 14/11/2018. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The respondents 1 to 3 filed their counter opposing the writ petition mainly on the ground of its maintainability. The respondents stated that the 1st respondent is neither a public authority nor performing any public duty, whereas it is Private Limited Company having been incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. As per the Certificate of Incorporation, the 1st respondent is a joint venture between State Bank of India and AMUNDI Asset Management, a leading European Asset Management Company and that the 1st respondent company does not fall within the definition of "State" as stipulated under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The respondents opposed the maintainability of the writ petition as it is in violation of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, more particularly, in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib (AIR 1981 SC 487 (LB)) and in a recent judgment in Ramakrishna Mission and another v. Kago Kunya and others (Civil Appeal No.2394 of 2019 (SLP (C) 3092 of 2018) and requested to dismiss the writ petition on the sole ground of its maintainability by taking it as primary objection.