Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neelam Rani vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 January, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.4155 of 2012
Date of decision: 24.1.2013
Neelam Rani ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Union of India & ors. ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Kul Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5.
Mr. M.S.Khillan, Advocate for respondent No.6.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking the following relief:
"Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ in the nature of prohibition directing the respondent No.2 and 3 not to interfere in the process of departmental enquiry being conducted against the respondent No.6 on the allegation of sexual harassment to the petitioner agency manager and not to pressurized the petitioner and the respondent No.4 and 5 for compromising with the respondent No.6."
A short reply dated 25.7.2012 by way of affidavit of Dr. Raj Kumar Vice Chairman of National Commission for Scheduled Castes Government of India New Delhi-respondents No.2 and 3 is on record wherein it has been stated that respondents No.2 and 3 are not interfering in the matter on the complaint against respondent No.6 and in fact CWP No.4155 of 2012 -2- respondents No.2 and 3 had taken cognizance of the matter only to collect the facts and information.
It may further be noticed that reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No.4 and 5 in Court today which is taken on record.
As per the aforesaid reply, respondent No.6 has been held to be guilty of having committed misconduct by passing indecent comments and trying to physically assault the petitioner and interfering in her job and a major penalty has been imposed upon him by reducing him to the rank i.e in the cadre of Assistant.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 could not dispute the aforesaid fact.
In view of the aforesaid fact, counsel for the petitioner states that the present petition may be dismissed having been rendered infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.
January 24, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE