ANJALI KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is an employee of NHPC Limited, a Government of India undertaking, having its office at Kalijhora Bazar, Darjeeling. NHPC Limited is the respondent no. 2 before the Court. The petitioner prays for a mandamus commanding NHPC and its managers and officers to cancel and withdraw an impugned Report dtd. 30/5/2022 and a show cause notice dtd. 20/6/2022. The petitioner's ground of challenge to the impugned notices is that the said notices were issued for extraneous considerations and as a reaction to a complaint made by the petitioner against the respondent no. 6 for sexual harassment. The respondent no. 6 is the General Manager, Finance of NHPC.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned show cause notice has been issued in violation of the Conduct Discipline and Appeal Rules (CDA Rules) which came to force with effect from 14/5/1979 and applies to all employees of NHPC except those stated in Rule 2 of the said Rules. Counsel submits that the show cause notice alleging misconduct against the petitioner was the result of a complaint which the petitioner filed against the respondent no. 6 for sexual harassment. Counsel submits that an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner without giving the petitioner due notice of the same. Counsel further submits that the Committee constituted for inquiring into the sexual harassment complaint filed by the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act).

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents defends the legality of the show cause notice on the ground that the petitioner has not challenged the jurisdiction of the authority to issue the said notice. Counsel places a Memorandum issued to the petitioner on 18/4/2022 and submits that the petitioner instituted the complaint of sexual harassment against the respondent no. 6 only after the Memorandum. Counsel submits that the petitioner has failed to make out any case against the respondent no. 6 with regard to the alleged sexual harassment. Counsel submits that the complaint of sexual harassment was a mere reaction to the show cause notice dtd. 18/4/2022 and further that the writ petition is premature since the respondent authorities have not passed any order against the petitioner. Counsel assures the Court that any action taken pursuant to the impugned show cause notice would strictly be in accordance with the CDA Rules.