IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 2008 of 2008(L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P.G.USHADEVI, SENIOR ASSISTANT MANAGER, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. LT. COL RAMACHANDRAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. CHANDRAKANTH, PERSONAL ASSISTANT OF MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. - R1 & R2, ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH - R3. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.2008/2008: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 15/02/07. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRL.M.P. NO. 1222/07. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE CHARGE. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 12/11/07. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPLY TO EXT.P.4. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R1.A: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. VC/13/07/EKM DT. 07/11/2007 RECEIVED FROM DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM BY THE R.2. EXT.R1.B: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. KSWC/ADMN CIRCULAR/2000-01 DT. 29/03/2001 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.R1.C: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST THE PETITIONER. EXT.R1.D: EXTRACT COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTRAR OF THE WAREHOUSE AT NORTH PARAVUR. EXT.R1.E: EXTRACT COPY OF THE LOG BOOK OF THE R.1. CORPORATION. EXT.R1.F: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 05/11/07 RECEIVED FROM THE PETITIONER. EXT.R3.A: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 10/01/2005. EXT.R3.B: COPY OF THE W.P.(C).6892/2007 MINUS ITS EXHIBITS DTD. 28/02/2007. //TRUE COPY// prv. V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.2008 of 2008 L ------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Senior Assistant Manager in the Kerala state Warehousing Corporation. The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P4 memo of charges. A perusal of Ext.P4 memo of charges will show that the main allegations raised against the petitioner is that she had raised frivolous complaints against the 3rd respondent, the Personal Assistant to the Managing Director. 2. Apparently, the petitioner had earlier raised an allegation that the 3rd respondent had attempted to outrage her modesty in an incident, which is alleged to have taken place in the cabin of the Managing Director, on 12.02.2007. An FIR thereafter came to be registered against the 3rd respondent. The petitioner is the first informant. The petitioner had filed a complaint before the Managing Director raising specific allegations against the Personal Assistant, the 3rd respondent. 3. According to the petitioner, Ext.P4 memo of charges is intended only as a counter blast to the registration W.P.(C).NO.2008/08 :: 2 :: of the crime at the instance of the petitioner. It is contended that Ext.P4 is frivolous and it is intended only to harass the petitioner. 4. Counter affidavits have been filed by the Warehousing Corporation and the 3rd respondent against whom, specific allegation of sexual harassment has been made. 5. I heard Mr.M.S.Unnikrishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Majnu Komath, learned counsel for the Warehousing Corporation and Mr.P.Gopinath Menon, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 6. The allegations contained in Ext.P4 also emanates or inextricably leads to the allegations levelled against the 3rd respondent. The veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner on one hand and counter allegations made by the 3rd respondent on the other, obviously, is a matter for a fact finding enquiry. What is to be noted is that, when a woman employee makes a complaint of sexual harassment against a co-worker, going by the directions contained in Visakha & others v. State of Rajasthan W.P.(C).NO.2008/08 :: 3 :: {AIR 1997 SC 3011}, the complaint is to be placed before a committee constituted specifically in that regard. The complaint filed by petitioner against the 3rd respondent will fall under the said category. In my view, this course of action should have been adopted by the Corporation earlier. Once a report by the committee is made available to the disciplinary authority, then it may have an impact on the continuance of the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: (a) The petitioner's complaint against the 3rd respondent in relation to the incident, which is alleged to have taken place on 12.02.2007, shall be placed before the Committee constituted in terms of Visakha's case (cited supra) for the employees of the Warehousing Corporation. (b) The said committee shall conduct such enquiry, as is deemed necessary and proper, and submit its report before the Managing Director within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. W.P.(C).NO.2008/08 :: 4 :: (c) A copy of the said report shall be made available to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. (d) On receipt of the said report, the Managing Director shall consider the same and then take a decision as to the continuance of the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner under Ext.P4. (e) It is made clear that the Managing Director shall pass a reasoned order in this regard and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. (f) Further proceedings in pursuance of Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance till orders are passed by the Managing Director. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the allegations levelled against the 3rd respondent by the petitioner or the counter allegations levelled against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy//