(1.) THE petitioner has been working as a Lecturer in English in Tangi Mahavidyalaya since 1991. The Principal of the said Mahavidyalaya Sri Saroj Kumar Tripathy (hereinafter referred to as 'the Principal') issued a letter dated 26.12.2000 to the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that the petitioner has not been staying in the college for the minimum period of 6 hours a day and she has failed to take classes when Professor B. Sarangi went on leave and that there have been complaints from some students that the petitioner has been misbehaving with them in the class. In the said letter dated 26.12.2000, the Principal also stated that the petitioner has not secured the requisite percentage of marks in the M. A. Examination and the petitioner has not tried to improve her marks and that the workload of the English Department does not permit a second lecturer and unless she mends her ways and functions as per the rules, necessary action as deemed fit would be initiated against her. In the said letter dated 26.12.2000, the Principal asked the petitioner to explain her stand in writing. The petitioner submitted her reply dated 3.1.2001 denying the allegations against her and stating that if the workload did not warrant a second post, she should not have been appointed nor allowed to continue in the post for long ten years. In her reply dated 3.1.2001, the petitioner also stated that the remuneration of invigilation for the C.H.S.E., 2000 and University Examination, 2000 has not been disbursed to her even though she has signed in the Council bills on 9.2.2000 and that she has not been paid her arrear dues of Rs. 5,700/ . She also alleged that the letter dated 26.12.2000 of the Principal marks the climax of 'harassment and blackmailing' continuously perpetrated on her by him. Thereafter the Sub Collector, Cuttack Sadar and Ex officio President of the Governing Body of Tangi Mahavidyalaya by his letter dated 23.2.2001 informed the petitioner that she has violated official decorum by levelling charges against the Principal of the college who is the Administrative Head of the Institution in her reply dated 3.1.2001 and that the language used by her in her said reply dated 3.1.2001. amounted to insubordination for which she was liable for disciplinary action. By the said letter dated 23.2.2001 the Sub Collector, Cuttack Sadar and Ex officio President of the Governing Body of Tangi Mahavidyalaya asked the petitioner to show cause as to why stern disciplinary action should not be initiated against her for insubordination and levelling wild allegations against the Principal of the College. In her reply to the Sub Collector, Cuttack Sadar and Ex officio President of the Governing Body of Tangi Mahavidyalaya dated 2.3.2001, the petitioner, inter alia, stated that the Principal of the Mahavidyalaya has passed an order attaching her to his office and has requested her to allow him to carry her to and fro from the College and her refusal to do so had made him angry, abusive and vindictive. The petitioner also addressed a letter dated 26.4.2001 to the Principal of Tangi Mahavidyalaya stating that he had not paid to her salary since January, 2001 and the remuneration for invigilation work out of grudge against her for her refusal for the sexual favour. The petitioner has filed the writ petition praying for a direction to transfer the Principal as well as the Sub Collector, Cuttack Sadar and Ex officio President of the Governing Body of Tangi Mahavidyalaya from their respective posts and to remove them from their respective posts and for compensation for such sexual harassment.
(2.) THE petitioner has also filed Misc. Case No. 9703 of 2001 stating therein that the petitioner can be insulated against all harm and further harassment if the Principal of the Mahavidyalaya and the Sub Collector, Cuttack Sadar and Ex officio President of the Governing Body of the Mahavidyalaya are transferred. In the said misc. case petition the petitioner has also stated that she has not been paid her salary for a period of six months from January, 2001. She has made a prayer in the misc. case for transfer of the Principal of the Mahavidyalaya and the Ex officio President of the Governing Body of the Mahavidyalaya and for a direction on the opposite parties to pay to the petitioner her unpaid salary and other dues.
(3.) IN reply, Mr. Akhil Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4, submitted that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1, 2 and 4, the allegations of sexual harassment of the petitioner by the Principal have been denied. He submitted that the Principal after joining Tangi Mahavidyalaya on 12.7.1999 found the petitioner to be negligent in duty and arrogant and since various allegations were made against the petitioner by the President of the Governing Body, the guardians, the gentlemen of the locality as well as the students, the Principal was compelled to call for an explanation from the petitioner by his letter dated 26.12.2000, but instead of giving a proper explanation, the petitioner made various allegations against the Principal. He submitted that the Principal is a Senior Reader who has served in the Higher Education Department for 27 years and has an excellent academic career and has been active in extra curricular activities such as N.C.C. and has received an award from the President of India in the year 1993 for his achievements and the allegations made by the petitioner against him are all false. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that after the Principal joined at the Tangi Mahavidyalaya, the results of the Institution have improved tremendously and although the Principal wants to go on transfer, the authorities are not allowing him to go on such transfer. He further submitted that the petitioner has secured only 52 per cent of marks in aggregate whereas the required percentage of marks for appointment as a Lecturer as per the U.G.C. guidelines is 54 per cent and in spite of notice to the petitioner to improve her percentage of marks, she has not improved her marks. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on 11.1.1991 by the then Governing Body against the second post of Lecturer in English but her appointment was not within the prescribed yardstick of the Government and it has been mentioned in the order dated 2.5.2001 issued by the Higher Education Department that the second post of Lecturer in English is not admissible as per the workload of the Institution. Mr. Mohapatra explained that because of these facts, the petitioner has become frustrated and is levelling baseless allegations against the Principal. He finally argued that the allegations of sexual harassment are all false and have been made by the petitioner to escape disciplinary proceedings initiated against her and the decision of the Supreme Court in Visakha's case (supra) did not apply to the facts of the present case.