Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

and 07.09.2006, by which the service of the petitioner was brought to an end and a further prayer has been made to reinstate the petitioner with all benefits and to regularise her services.

3. The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was published by MECON Ltd., in 2005 seeking applications for recruitment of engineers on contract basis on a fixed salary of Rs.12,000/- per month for a period of one year. As the petitioner was qualified for the said post, she applied. The petitioner, after going through all the formalities, was appointed as Assistant Project Engineer on contract basis for a period of one year from the date of appointment on a consolidated salary of Rs.12,000/-. The said offer of appointment is dated 20.09.2005.

4. The petitioner claims that while she was working and posted in the Electrical (DC & C) Department, some employees, namely, Sujit Kumar and D. Patil were harassing her. She was transferred from the said Section and inspite of such transfer, she alleged that the harassment continued. She claimed that she complained before the Director Commercial, MECON on 27.02.2006, but, filing of the said complaint was not acknowledged by putting any date on the said complaint. Only after repeated requests, the same was acknowledged on 28.08.2006. She claims that her complain fell to deaf ears and no action was taken by the authorities, as such, she reported the matter to the Officer-in-Charge, Doranda Police Station on 01.09.2006. She claims that instead of taking any action against those two officials, her employer slapped a suspension order upon her on 05.08.2006, as a result of which she was put under suspension. On 05.08.2006, another letter was issued to the petitioner, wherein she was informed that Shri Divya Jyoti Patil has complained that this petitioner has assaulted him and recommended for taking stern action against the petitioner.

5. A memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner on 07.08.2006, wherein she has been charged with assaulting, intimidating, threatening the officer concerned and also of using abusive language. The petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause and stated that just because this petitioner complained about sexual harassment against D. Patil, with an eye of revenge, this proceeding has been initiated against her. An enquiry was set up to inquire the charges levelled against this petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the said enquiry proceeding. It is alleged that during the pendency of the enquiry, an office order dated 06.09.2006 was issued by the Personnel Officer, MECON wherein it has been informed to the petitioner that she will be released from the service with effect from 06.10.2006 and a direction was given to hand over all the articles of the Company. Another letter was issued to the petitioner on 07.09.2006 informing her to hand over the quarters in vacant condition within 7 days from the date of expiry of the contract period. Challenging the said two orders, the petitioner filed this writ application.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the writ application, vide office order dated 05.10.2006, the petitioner was awarded punishment of 'censure' on the basis of the findings of the enquiry officer, after conclusion of the departmental proceeding.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner argues that the order of removal of the petitioner is not simplicitor and rather a stigmatic. She submits that the order is with a malafide intention. She states that though the contract period was for one year, in respect of others, the same has been extended and many of them have been regularised and petitioner has been left out. She stated that the petitioner complained against higher officials, as such she has been made a victim. It is her argument that without taking action against the officers against whom petitioner had alleged sexual harassment, the respondents have initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner and thereafter removed her in a stigmatic manner taking shelter of the contract. She stated that the respondents should have proceeded with the complaint filed by this petitioner and by not doing so, respondents have saved the actual culprits and punished the petitioner who was being harassed. She submits that as per the judgment reported in (1997) 6 SCC 241 Vishaka & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Others, the management is duty bound to prevent sexual harassment at work place against women and to take appropriate action against the employees who are guilty, but, in this case, the respondents have not taken any action and rather penalised the petitioner. She submits that since the order of removal is not simplicitor and rather stigmatic, the same should be set aside and the petitioner should not only be reinstated, but, rather should be regularised as permanent employee of MECON Ltd.