Kerala High Court
K.Reeja vs Pradeep T.C on 25 July, 2016
Bench: K.Surendra Mohan, Mary Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
THURSDAY,THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/18TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WA.No. 5 of 2017 () IN WP(C).12504/2016
-----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 12504/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 25-07-2016
APPELLANT/7TH RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
K.REEJA,
PARAMBATH,NAALUTHARA.P.O,MAHE-673310.
BYADVS.SRI.S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU)
SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1-6 IN WRIT PETITION:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. PRADEEP T.C.,
S/O KELU,RESIDING AT CHAITHANYAM(H),
NEDUMBRAN,CHOKLI.P.O,THALASSERYTALUK,
KANNUR DIST.WORKING AS HEAD MASTER,GANAPATHY VILASAM JUNIOR AND
PRE BASIC SCHOOL ,KODIYERI, KANNUR DISTRICT-673320.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DISTRICT OFFICER(LOCAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE) AND DISTRICT
COLLECTOR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670001.
4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,KANNUR-620001.
5. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATION OFFICER,
THALASSERY SOUTH,KANNUR DISTRICT-620001.
6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT.
7. PRESIDENT, PARENTS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION,
GANAPATHI VILASOM JUNIOR & PRE BASIC SCHOOL,KODIYERI,
NALUTHARA.P.O, PIN-673320.
R1 BY ADV.SRI.P.N.SUKUMARAN
R7 BY ADV.SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ
R2 TO R6 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.GEORGE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-03-2017, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA.No. 5 of 2017 () IN WP(C).12504/2016
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES :
ANNEXURE A1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2016 IN WP(C).NO.12504/2016
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
AV
K.SURENDRA MOHAN & MARY JOSEPH, JJ.
---------------------------------------------
W.A.No.5 of 2017
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of March, 2017
J U D G M E N T
Surendra Mohan, J.
This Writ Appeal is filed by the seventh respondent in W.P.(C). No.12504 of 2016 challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.07.2016, allowing the writ petition. The first respondent is the writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge has, by the judgment appealed against, quashed the impugned orders Exts.P9 and P10 in the writ petition.
2. The first respondent is the Headmaster of Ganapathi Vilasam Junior & Pre Basic School, Kodiyeri, Kannur District. The appellant herein was engaged as a Cook in the School by the Parent Teacher Association of the School. According to the appellant, she was subjected to harassment at her workplace by the first respondent, which included sexual harassment as well. She complained against the behaviour of the first respondent to her husband. Her husband questioned the first respondent. Out of animosity nurtured by the first respondent against the appellant, she was abused, her work was found fault with and he saw to it that she was removed from service. Though she complained about sexual harassment, an enquiry conducted by the Assistant Educational Officer ("AEO" for short) found that the allegations W.A.No.5 of 2017 2 raised in her complaint were baseless. Therefore, the AEO directed the Parent Teacher Association ("PTA" for short) to convene a meeting to decide whether the appellant should be continued in service or not. They convened a meeting and decided not to continue to engage the appellant. A further complaint was preferred by the appellant to the AEO. The AEO again considered the complaint, found that the same was without any basis and again directed the PTA to take a fresh decision. In the meanwhile, the appellant preferred a complaint before the Police authorities alleging sexual harassment against the first respondent. Another complaint was filed before the second respondent under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). Pursuant to the said complaint, the second respondent passed the impugned order Ext.P9 directing the first respondent Headmaster to reinstate the appellant in service as a Cook and to recover the wages payable to her from the date of disengagement till the date of reinstatement from his salary. Ext.P10 is the order passed by the AEO pursuant to Ext.P9. Both the orders were challenged by the first respondent in W.P.(C).No.12504 of 2016.
3. It was contended by the first respondent that, the complaint that was preferred by the appellant was belated, beyond the period that is stipulated by Section 9 of the Act. It was also alleged that he W.A.No.5 of 2017 3 was not served with a copy of the notice of enquiry and was not heard prior to passing of Ext.P9 order. The writ petition was contested by the appellant who filed a counter affidavit stating that she has been working as Cook at the School from 2009 onwards. There were no complaints against her or about her work during the seven years that she had been working in the School. A complaint was raised against her for the first time, only after she had resisted the advances of the first respondent and complained against his objectionable conduct. Therefore, mala fides were writ large in her termination. The Headmaster had seen to it that she was terminated from service influencing the members of the PTA. It was contended that, the impugned orders Exts.P9 and P10 were passed in the said circumstances and were justifiable.
4. The learned Single Judge considered the respective contentions and found that the complaint was preferred beyond the time stipulated by Section 9 of the Act and even beyond the condonable period. It is further found that, the allegations of the appellant are not supported by any evidence or material on record. Therefore, the impugned orders were found to be unsustainable. Accordingly, the writ petition has been allowed and the orders have been set aside. The present writ petition was disposed of along with another writ petition W.P.(C).No.18603 of 2016 filed by the President of the PTA challenging the very same orders. W.A.No.5 of 2017 4
5. We have heard the learned Government Pleader, who appears for respondents 2 to 6, Adv.Sri.P.N.Sukumaran, who appears for the first respondent and Adv.Smt.Jayasree Manoj, who appears for the seventh respondent.
6. According to Adv.Smt.Varsha Bhaskar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, this is a case in which a harassed lady is knocking the doors of this Court for justice. She is a person who had to face harassment at the hands of the Headmaster at her workplace. She is a poor person who was working as a Cook. Her husband is a driver. She has a son, who is studying in the 10th standard in the same school and a daughter, who is studying in the 9th standard. She has been victimised for not having acceded to the unreasonable demands of the first respondent. It was only for the reason that she had complained of his objectionable conduct that, her work was found fault with. She had worked in the said School from 2009 onwards without giving cause for complaint from any quarter. It is contended that, it was the influence of the first respondent that persuaded the PTA members to terminate her services. Though the AEO had conducted two enquiries, he had not questioned the right persons. The teachers who were in the know of the real state of affairs, were not questioned by him. Therefore, the second respondent had passed the impugned orders, considering the seriousness of the allegations made by the appellant. The W.A.No.5 of 2017 5 learned Single Judge seriously erred in interfering with the impugned orders and setting them aside. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks interference with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in appeal.
7. According to Adv.Sri.P.N.Sukumaran, who appears for the first respondent, all the allegations levelled against him are baseless. Though the AEO had conducted two enquiries, it was found that the allegations were baseless. The enquiries were conducted after questioning all parties concerned. It is pointed out that as rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the complaint made by the appellant itself was belated and was preferred beyond the period of limitation stipulated by Section 9 of the Act. However, the second respondent acted upon the same in violation of law and for the said reason, the impugned orders were illegal and liable to be interfered with. The impugned orders were passed without hearing the first respondent and without providing a copy of the complaint to him. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in Ext.P1, the first complaint made by the appellant, there are no allegations of sexual harassment, whereas, such allegations have surfaced only later as evident from Ext.P5. Therefore, it is contended that, the appeal is only to be dismissed.
8. Adv.Smt.Jayasree Manoj, who appears for the seventh respondent, raises a preliminary objection pointing out that since W.A.No.5 of 2017 6 the impugned orders have been quashed by a learned Single Judge by allowing W.P.(C).No.18603 of 2016, no interference with the common judgment is possible in this appeal, the same being directed only against the judgment in W.P.(C).No.12504 of 2016. It is pointed out that the judgment in W.P(C).No.18603 of 2016 having become final, bars any interference with the judgment appealed against.
9. Heard. It is no doubt true that, the allegations raised by the appellant are serious and are necessary to be taken note of, with the seriousness that it deserves. We are certainly conscious of the limitations to which the appellant is subjected to, being a Cook working in the School of which the first respondent is the Headmaster. It is stated that she is a poor lady, her husband is a driver and they are persons who are struggling to make both ends meet. Nevertheless, no action against the first respondent is permissible, unless the allegations are substantiated by acceptable material or evidence. In the present case, in Ext.P1, the first complaint made by the first respondent, the allegations are confined to harassment, that does not have any sexual overtones. The said complaint is also preferred after her termination from service, as per Ext.P3 on 31.05.2015. However, in Ext.P5, which is a printed notice relating to some agitation that was being carried on against the first respondent, there are even allegations of attempt to commit rape. W.A.No.5 of 2017 7 Be that as it may, the AEO had conducted two enquiries into the allegations. The AEO had questioned all the parties concerned and has reported that, the complaints are without basis. The learned counsel for the appellant attacks the said report contending that, the reports were submitted, only after questioning the students who are studying in the 5th standard. But a perusal of the reports Exts.P2 and P4 show that, the teachers were also questioned. Therefore, the fact remains that the allegations in the present case are not substantiated by any evidence.
10. As rightly found by the learned Single Judge, the complaint made by the appellant itself was belated, beyond the time limit stipulated by Section 9 of the Act and even beyond the condonable time limit of three months. Therefore, the second respondent had no authority or power to act upon the said complaint and pass the impugned orders, Exts.P9 and P10. The learned Single Judge has therefore, rightly set aside the said orders.
11. Apart from the above, this Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment in W.P.(C).No.12504 of 2016 only, whereas, as per the judgment appealed against, another writ petition, W.P.(C).No.18603 of 2016 has also been allowed. In both the writ petitions, the orders impugned were the same. The very same orders have been set aside by allowing W.P.(C).No.18603 of 2016 also, which has become final. Therefore, for the said reason also, we are not satisfied that W.A.No.5 of 2017 8 the appellant is entitled to any reliefs in this appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Appeal fails and is Accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH JUDGE AV /True Copy/ P.A to Judge