Karnataka High Court
Dr.K C Varadarajulu vs Indan Plywood Indutries Research And ... on 7 April, 2026
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18776
WP No. 5232 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5232 OF 2020 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. K C VARADARAJULU
SON OF MR LAKSHMI NARAYANA KUNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
FLAT NO.103, BIVA BHAVAN,
JADHAV GHOSH ROAD,
SARUSANA, KOLKATA -700 061
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by
SHARADAVANI
B
Location: High (BY SRI. KARAN JOSEPH, ADVOCATE)
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1. INDAN PLYWOOD INDUTRIES RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE
BENGALURU
POST BAG NO.2273
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18776
WP No. 5232 of 2020
HC-KAR
TUMKUR ROAD,
YESHWANTHPUR PO
BENGALURU -560 022
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
2. DR.XXX,
W/O MR. JITENDRA YADAV
AT IPRITI, MOHALI,
B-65-PHASE 7, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
SAHIBZADA, AJIT SINGH NAGAR,
PUNJAB-160055.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI M.R.BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 14.10.2019 AT ANENXURE-K ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENT AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18776
WP No. 5232 of 2020
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"A. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Impugned Order dated 14.10.2019 bearing reference /No. Dir./ICC-WH/CS/ (at Annexure K) issued by the Respondent.
B. Issue any other such appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit including the grant of exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1 & learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was working as Scientist-C in respondent No.1- Institute from 2010 onwards and during the course of his employment, a complaint dated 23.05.2017 was filed against him, in pursuance of which, the Internal Complaints Committee of respondent No.1 submitted its Preliminary Investigation Report dated 24.07.2017 inter alia observing that there was no material against the petitioner to substantiate the charge leveled against him. On 18.05.2018, charge memo was issued -4- NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR to the petitioner and an enquiry was conducted during the period from 22.10.2018 to 25.02.2019 culminating in the impugned order imposing the punishment of reduction to a lower post/grade/time scale/service for a period of five years without increment with effect from 14.10.2019. Aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-K dated 14.10.2019, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and invited my attention to the impugned order in order to point out that in relation to the very same incident, a preliminary investigation was conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee and a punishment of punitive transfer was imposed upon the petitioner, who was shifted from Bangalore to IPIRPI Station, Koltaka on 31.18.2017 itself and as such, the impugned order purporting to impose punishment once again upon the petitioner would be violative of principles of double jeopardy as contemplated under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India as held by this Court in the case of Suman Saurabh vs. The internal Complaints Committee and others in -5- NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR W.P.No.29790/2014 (GM-RES). It is also submitted that a request of the petitioner for seniority may also be directed to be considered by respondent No.1 in accordance with law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Institute and learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant would support the impugned order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.
6. In Suman Saurabh's case supra, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held as under:
"Sri.L.Govindraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayers (c) & (d) may be dismissed as not pressed for time being.
The said submission is placed on record.
Accordingly, prayers (c) & (d) in the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
2. The petitioner filed the writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order/notice dated 23.06.2014 issued by the first respondent and to declare that second respondent has no power to hold second inquiry in respect of the same charges against the petitioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as an Engineer in the second respondent-Company and as on the date of filing the writ petition, he was holding the post of Manager, CSC Business Analytics Team and Programme -6- NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR Manager. The petitioner's performance has been rated with top ratings by the second respondent- Company as per employees rating system in the past 11 years. When things stood thus; the petitioner received an e-mail on 29.01.2014 from an employee of HR Department requesting the petitioner to attend a meeting on the same day. The meeting however turned out to be an inquiry for alleged sexual harassment. The petitioner was forced to resign to his services upon conclusion of the meeting, without receiving a copy of the complaint and he was also not aware of the allegations made against him.
4. Upon regaining self-composure, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Committee member expressing his displeasure over the manner in which the proceedings were conducted and also forwarded a copy of that e-mail to his Manager. The petitioner's resignation was however accepted on 31.01.2014 and he was to be relieved from service on 25.03.2014 as is evident from Annexure-G. The petitioner was subjected to further inquiry on 03.02.2014 and then asked to sign documents prepared by the Committee. The petitioner declined and informed the same to his manager.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner had not received correspondence from the first respondent, but he was allowed to continue in employment even after 25.03.2014. In the circumstances, he assumed that the matter was closed. Indeed, the petitioner was sent to the United States on an assignment on 28.04.2014. Once again he was sent to the United States on 12.05.2014 on a project. While in the Unites States, he received a communication from the first respondent dated 15.05.2014, enclosing a report dated 11.05.2014 holding the petitioner guilty of some of the charges of alleged sexual harassment. The first respondent recommended for termination of petitioner's service. After receipt of e-mail, petitioner submitted his response reiterating that he -7- NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR is innocent in the matter while pointing out flagrant statutory violations made by the Committee. When things stood thus, the first respondent again issued the impugned notice as per Annexure-V dated 23.06.2014 initiating fresh investigation/inquiry of the complaint filed by Ms. Asharani.S on 21.01.2014. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. The first respondent has filed the objections to the writ petition, contending that the writ petition filed against initiation of fresh investigation is not maintainable. On receipt of the complaint relating to the sexual harassment against the petitioner on 21.01.2014, the first respondent discharging its responsibilities envisaged under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short the "Act") conducted an inquiry in a fair and unbiased manner. It is further contended that though the sexual harassment Rules were notified in December, 2013, there was lack of clarity in respect of this requirement during the early days and keeping in mind the sensitivity of the issue of sexual harassment and with an intension to protect the identity of the victim, a copy of the complaint was not served on the petitioner. However, the petitioner was proved guilty in the meeting dated 29.01.2014. The petitioner was also allowed to participate in the inquiry proceedings and the statement of the petitioner was recorded as per Annexures-W1 & W2. Statement of the victim was also recorded as per Annexures - W3 & W4. Based on the investigation, the first respondent issued report dated 11.05.2014 holding the petitioner guilty of some of the charges of alleged sexual harassment.
7. According to Section 11 of the Act, a copy of the said report was provided to the petitioner in order to record his findings. The procedure adopted by the first respondent was fair and therefore, there is bonafide on the part of the first -8- NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR respondent. It is further contended that thereafter an e-mail dated 22.05.2014 received by the petitioner alleging the process prescribed under the sexual harassment Rules were violated during the inquiry proceedings, on the basis of the said e-mail, the decision to conduct fresh inquiry/investigation to the complaint afresh without any conclusion or interference being drawn from the past investigation proceedings. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties to the lis.
9. Sri. L. Govindraju, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition has contended that the impugned Annexure- V dated 23.06.2014 issued by the first respondent to hold fresh inquiry/investigation is impermissible, when the report already submitted by the first respondent on 11.05.2014 is still pending for adjudication. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. He would further contend that the plain reading of the report dated 11.05.2014 prepared by the first respondent does not disclose any harassment as alleged in the complaint, much less sexual harassment. Indeed, having recorded a finding that none of the acts amounts to sexual harassment, the recommendation for imposing extreme penalty of termination is indicative of prejudice and malafides on the part of the first respondent. When the recommendation is still not implemented, the first respondent absolutely has no jurisdiction to conduct second investigation/inquiry, which is not permissible for the first respondent to initiate fresh inquiry. Therefore, sought to allow the writ petition.
10. Per contra, Sri. C.P.Ayappa, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 reiterating the averments made in the statement of objections -9- NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR contended that on the complaint made by an employee an inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and after an inquiry, the recommendation was made for termination of petitioner from his services. In the meanwhile, the first respondent received an e-mail from the petitioner stating that the first respondent has not complied certain provisions and not furnished a copy of the complaint to him. Therefore, the first respondent thought fit to initiate a fresh inquiry against the petitioner. Therefore, sought to dismiss the writ petition.
11. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner was working as an Engineer in the second respondent-Company and as on the date of filing writ petition was filed he was holding the post of Manager, CSC Business Analytics Team and Programme Manager. The petitioner's performance has been rated with top ratings by the second respondent-Company as per employees rating system in the past 11 years. It is specific case of the petitioner that when the first respondent initiated proceedings on the alleged complaint made by the complainant/employee-Ms.Asharani.S, a copy of the complaint was also furnished and he has participated in the inquiry proceedings and he has raised the objections and violations on the Rules provided under the Act. In spite of the objections, the first respondent proceeded to record the finding on six charges issued in the recommendation dated 11.05.2014/Annexure-L, which reads as under:
No: Issue Allegations Finding Basis of finding
1. Manager During the One on Not This allegation Suman one discussion on 16 established could not be Saurabh Jan 2014 with the substantiated as talks in manager (Suman it was during a unethical Saurabh) and one on one way aggrieved employee conversation.
(Asharani S) the managers had used
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18776
WP No. 5232 of 2020
HC-KAR
obscene examples
like
- Watching
blue films
- How would
you ask your
wife to
remove
clothes
- To go to
Amsterdam
for having
"Legal sex"
and view
"live sex"
2. Manager Asharani says that established Suman has
Suman he has a habit of himself admitted
Saurabh putting his hand on to hugging Team
lays hands her shoulders and Members on
on the talk and hugging her Birthdays, which
aggrieved when viewed
employee from the
perspective of a
woman
employee who is
no culturally
exposed to the
same and is
averse to such
conduct,
constitutes
unwelcome
behavior.
Evidence: Exhibit
No.4-Point no.10
& Exhibit No.3
Point 7.
3. Manager For improving my Not proved This allegation
Suman (Asharani's) could not be
Saurabh communication, substantiated as
gives boldness and the
examples shyness he (Suman) conversations
in sexual gives examples in were mostly one
terms sexual terms to one.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18776
WP No. 5232 of 2020
HC-KAR
4. Manager Suman will show me Not proved Suman
shares some bad-mannered confirmed that
other messages and tell he shared
employees me to read those extremely
personal messages and make private
information fund of it. The information of a
with team content of this lady colleague
members unsolicited regarding her
extremely private pregnancy, with
information of a lady Asha and Ashwin
colleague regarding on his own.
her pregnancy. Evidence: Exhibit
No.4 & 3.
This incident
may not directly
constitute sexual
harassment per
se, however
when viewed
with the series of
incidents that
aggrieved
employee has
alleged to the
subjected to,
these have
created a hostile
work
environment for
the aggrieved
woman
employee.
5. Usage of Suman Saurabh Not proved Suman has
bad uses "FUCK" word himself admitted
language on the floor. This this. Evidence:
on floor makes Asharani very Exhibit No.4.
uncomfortable at the Though this is
workplace. not sexual
harassment
intended directly
at Asharani, it
has created a
very offensive
hostile work
environment for
the aggrieved
employee, which
falls under
sexual
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18776
WP No. 5232 of 2020
HC-KAR
harassment.
6. Plays sex Suman Saurabh Substance Suman has
related plays games related found admitted to
games on to sex on the floor playing the
floor with all the team Psychometric
members. In the game first with
game all members one of his team
are asked 4 members
questions: Natasha, who
1. Name your then played it in
favorite animal and his presence,
why do they like with the team.
that animal. (answer Asharani was
to this question will present there
tell about your and felt very
personality) uncomfortable.
2. If you have 3
keys and 3 lockets Evidence: Exhibit
of different sizes No.4
which key you would
take it to open the A hostile work
door. (answer to this environment was
question will tell created for the
about your ego) aggrieved
3. What will you do woman
when you see a employee by the
ocean.(answer to sexually explicit
this question will tell sexually coloured
about your sex content the
drive) game played.
4. How will you like
your room to be?
(answer to this
question will tell
about your
perspective towards
life)
12. Ultimately, exercising the powers under Section 11 of the Act, the first respondent recommended for termination of services of the petitioner. Admittedly, the said recommendation was
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR not implemented. When things stood thus, very strangely the first respondent issued one more notice communicating the petitioner that ICC-first respondent initiated fresh investigation on the complaint filed by Ms. Asharani.S dated 21.01.2014. When the first respondent initiated proceedings on the basis of the complaint made by women employee-Ms. Asharani.S under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013; initiated proceedings and recommended for termination of the petitioner holding that one of the charges is proved, before the recommendation culminated into any further action, on the basis of the alleged e-mail received by the petitioner, the first respondent proceeded to initiate fresh inquiry, which is impermissible under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
13. The provisions of Section 11 of the Act reads as under:
"11. Inquiry into complaint.-(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 10, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall, where the respondent is an employee, proceed to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent and where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed or in case of a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, if prima facie case exist, forward the complaint to the police, within a period of seven days for registering the case under section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), and any other relevant provisions of the said Code where applicable:
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR Provided that where the aggrieved woman informs the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, that any term or condition of the settlement arrived at under sub-section (2) of Section 10 has not been complied with by the respondent, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee shall proceed to make an inquiry into the complaint or, as the case may be, forward the complaint to the police:
Provided further that where both the parties are employees, the parties shall, during the course of inquiry, be given an opportunity of being heard and a copy of the findings shall be made available to both the parties enabling them to make representation against the findings before the Committee.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), the Court may, when the respondent is convicted of the offence, order payment of such sums as it may consider appropriate, to the aggrieved woman by the respondent, having regard to the provisions of section 15.
(3) For the purpose of making an inquiry under sub-section(1), the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely.-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; and
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR
(c) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(4) The inquiry under sub-section(1) shall be completed within a period of ninety days."
14. Sri. C.P.Ayappa, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 is not in a position to assist the Court whether such procedure is permitted under the provisions of Act and Rules stated (supra) or any regulations made by the first respondent. Until and unless, the recommendation is implemented in accordance with law, it is not permissible for the first respondent to initiate fresh inquiry or if the first respondent wants to provide an opportunity to the petitioner on the basis of an e-mail request made by him, the first respondent in all fairness ought to have dropped the proceedings if they had violated procedure as contemplated. Admittedly, the proceedings has not been dropped, recommendation made against the petitioner is still hanging on his head. In the meanwhile, initiating fresh inquiry on the same charges on the complaint made by Ms. Asharani.S is totally without jurisdiction.
15. In view of the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once as it amounts to "double jeopardy". Therefore, the initiation made by the first respondent for a fresh inquiry on the same charges, on the same complaint is impermissible. Admittedly, the recommendation made by the first respondent is still pending for adjudication and the initiation of second inquiry is without jurisdiction. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained.
16. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice/order dated
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR 23.06.2014, Annexure-V is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute."
(Emphasis supplied)
7. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned order will indicate that respondent No.1 has noticed the undisputed fact that the preliminary enquiry conducted against the petitioner in relation to the very same compliant/incident culminated in an order of punitive transfer imposed against the petitioner from the Bengaluru to Kolkata. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as under:
"The ICC submitted the Preliminary Investigation Report (PIR) to Director, IPIRTI on 24.07.2017 based on the hearing conducted with both the complainant and respondent. On having meticulously evaluated the entire line of reasoning and corresponding evidences submitted by both the parties that has emerged as a result of the entire Preliminary Examination exercise, the Committee had arrived at the conclusion/surmise that the said Respondent had indeed sent the objectionable/unpleasant message on Line chat and also the respondent has failed to prove a tangible/convincing evidence to counter the allegation leveled against him.
The Committee however recommended a suggestion that the respondent may be shifted out of Bangalore and posted to any of the IPIRTI Centres, specifically a far off place from Bangalore to avoid the meeting of complainant and respondent during the meetings.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR Subsequently, the Disciplinary AUthority forwarded the PIR to MoEF&CC stating that the recommendation of ICC will be implemented within the time limit stipulated under Section 13(4) of the Sexual Harassment Act 2013. He also forwarded the PIR to both the complainant and also he has been shifted to IPIRTI Field Station, Kolkata as per the Officer Transfer Order No.ES/Per.File/063 dated 31.08.2017 issued based on the ICC recommendations. However, the Office Order states that he has been transferred due to administrative reasons."
8. As can be seen from the impugned order, it is an undisputed fact that pursuant to the preliminary examination/enquiry conducted by respondent No.1 in relation to the very same allegation of sexual harassment leveled by respondent No.2 against the petitioner, the petitioner has been transferred from Begnaluru to Kolkata by way of punitive transfer.
9. Under these circumstances, having regard to Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India which bars double jeopardy pursuant to what convicted or charged for the very same offence more than once and the principles of double jeopardy, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18776 WP No. 5232 of 2020 HC-KAR
10. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) Writ petition is hereby allowed.
ii) The impugned order dated 14.10.2019 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed.
iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to submit a representation to respondent No.1, who shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law without reference to the impugned order which has been quashed by the present order.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39