SHANTILATA PATTANAIK Vs. SWAMINATHAN RESEARCH FOUNDATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order of termination dated 12.08.2008 (Annexure-8) issued by opposite party No.2-Executive Director, M/s. Swaminathan Research Institute, Chennai and for a direction to the opposite parties to pay all her service benefits.

(2.) Petitioner's case in a nut shell is that she joined the office of opposite party No.1-M/s Swaminathan Research Foundation, represented by its Chairman, AT: 3 rd Cross Street, Paramani Institutional Area, Chennai (for short, 'the Foundation') on 01.12.2005 as a Genetic Literacy Programme Facilitator in its Jeypore Office, Odisha. Opposite party No.1 being a Research Foundation is an autonomous non-profiting trust registered in the year 1988 at Delhi. Its aim and objective is to organize research and training to promote a job-led economic growth strategy in rural area. The Foundation is recognized as a Post Graduate Research Centre by the University of Madras, Anna University, Chennai and the Osmania University, Hyderabad since 1990. It is getting grant from Government of India and State of Tamil Nadu including many other international funding agencies. Being satisfied with the performance of the petitioner, she was reappointed as a Research Fellow and posted as a Scientist in the project, namely, Quantitative Assessment and Mapping of Plant Resources of Eastern Ghats. While working as such on 12.12.2007, when she went to the library for returning the books issued to her, one Mr.Nihar Ranjan Parida, Technical Assistant of Project Medicinal Plants closed the door and sexually molested her. She was not expecting such behaviour from him and was unable to decide what to do. However, she was able to escape from his clutches and ran outside the room. Thereafter, with a heavy heart she returned to her house and decided to complain the matter to opposite Party No.2-Executive Director of opposite party No.1-Foundation and accordingly sent the complaint through email dated 13.012.2007.

(3.) On 14.12.2007, through email she got the reply from the opposite party regarding receipt of her complaint and in the said letter she was requested to go to Chennai for about 10 days so as to enable him to know about the matter in detail and to finalize the procedure for further action. Petitioner had also received a letter from the Executive Director asking her to come over to Chennai immediately on duty; she was also assured in the said letter that her complaint will be dealt with promptly and seriously. As directed by opposite party No.2, the petitioner went to Chennai on 16.12.2007. She was not allowed to come to Jeypore and directed to stay there. A complaint committee was constituted and the proceeding was conducted on 07.02.2008 at Chennai. In course of hearing of the proceeding, she was informed by the Committee that the person against whom she had complained had also made a complaint against her. But the petitioner had neither been provided with a copy of the complaint nor she was allowed to see the same. The petitioner also requested the Complaint Committee for permission to take assistance of a lawyer to conduct the proceeding which was refused. In course of the proceeding she was harassed by the Committee members by putting her humiliating questions. Therefore, she wrote a letter dated 09.02.2008 addressing to the Executive Director of opposite party No.1 Institution stating therein about the manner in which the proceeding was conducted and the way she was humiliated. Finally, the Committee disposed of the complaint on 14.05.2008 by giving a finding that the conduct of Mr.Nihar Ranjan Parida was unbecoming but the complaint made against Saujundra Swain was not found to be proved.