ANANTA PRASAD Vs. GAUHATI HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2, 3 and 5.

(2.) Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed, although it may be a final order in the writ petition, we do not deem it appropriate to issue notices to the respondent no. 4 Ms. Santana Ghosh and respondent no. 6 Mr. Anup Narayan Ghosh.

(3.) The respondent no. 4 had lodged a written complaint under Section 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short, the Act of 2013), against the petitioner and the said written complaint had resulted in a proceeding under the Act, which is continuing, and in this writ petition the Court is not required to go into the question of the legality and validity of such proceeding. Alternatively, an independent disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner, purportedly on the same cause of action, wherein an order of suspension was also passed against the petitioner. The independent disciplinary proceeding and the order of suspension are assailed in this petition, which pertains to the service conditions of the petitioner, and therefore the complainant in a sexual harassment proceeding, which otherwise is continuing as per law, is neither a necessary party, nor is required to be heard, in the proceeding pertaining to the service conditions simplicitor in respect of the petitioner. Further no ground of malafide against the respondent No. 6 is urged upon in the writ petition, and therefore the respondent concerned need not be arrayed in person.