IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 231 of 2011 (S/B) A.K. Bisht ….…… Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents. Mr. Ishit Saharia and Mr. Ardhendu Mauli K. Prasad, Advocates for the peitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent No. 1. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. Navnish Negi, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Date of Judgment: 20.12.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging communication by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 of the report of an inquiry conducted by a Committee, comprising of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav, Smt. Kanta Prasad and Shri Prashant Joshi, Registrar Inspection (for the Registrar General). In the report, a reference has been given to Writ Petition No. 360 of 2010 (S/S). Admittedly, the said writ petition was filed by respondent No. 3, which having been dismissed, a Special Appeal has been filed by respondent No. 3, which Special Appeal is still pending. 2. On the writ petition, no order was passed constituting any Committee, either comprising of Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Nirmal Yadav, Smt. Kanta Prasad and Shri Prashant Joshi, Registrar Inspection or comprising of any other person. On the appeal, no interim order has been passed constituting any Committee comprising of those persons or of any other person. The said Committee has held, in its report, that the alleged unwanted conduct of sexual harassment by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 at workplace, stands proved. Respondent No. 2 has forwarded the said report to respondent No. 1, who happens to be the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, in order to enable respondent No. 1 to take further steps on the said report. 2 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no such report could be prepared and, accordingly, no such report could be sent to respondent No. 1. In order to ascertain as to how the said report came to be in existence, since there is no judicial order directing constitution of any such Committee, with a correspondence direction to the Committee to consider the case of sexual harassment of respondent No. 3, we ensured presence of respondent No. 3 and have come to learn from the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that in Writ Petition No. 360 of 2010 (S/S), it was the contention of respondent No. 3 that she is being transferred without any just reason and when the matter came up before the appellate court, it having been pointed out that there was some harassment by the petitioner to respondent No. 3, an inquiry was made by the Court in that regard and thereupon, an administrative order was issued by the Hon’ble Chief Justice, directing the matter to be decided by the Committee, referred to above. 4. The said Committee has been constituted by this Court in relation to complaints of sexual harassment at workplace by any employee of the High Court. The said Committee has not been constituted for considering similar complaints against employees of any other department. In the circumstances, by an administrative order, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court could not direct the complaint of respondent No. 3, who is an employee of a different department, to be considered by the Committee constituted by this Court in relation to similar complaints by the employees of the High Court. 5. We, accordingly, set aside the said inquiry report as well as the communication of the said report by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 has drawn our attention to two documents, copies whereof have been annexed to the present writ petition, namely, annexure No. 7 and annexure No. 20. It is submitted that annexure No. 7, which has been annexed to the official counter filed in the said appeal, do not contain the handwritten endorsement 3 as appears on annexure No. 7. It was submitted that annexure No. 20 purports to hold out that the report of the inquiry against respondent No. 3 was submitted to the Chief Engineer, Level I, whereas no such document finds place in the official affidavit filed in the pending appeal of respondent No. 3. It was contended that the petitioner is guilty of forgery and, accordingly, should be appropriately dealt with. 7. We expressly permit the case of forgery to be highlighted in the appeal of respondent No. 3 pending, in as much as we feel that the present matter should be concluded only on the basis that an incompetent authority went into the grievances of respondent No. 3 as regards sexual harassment meted out to her at workplace by the petitioner and, accordingly, the finding recorded by such incompetent authority must be put to rest and cannot be taken ahead further. 8. We, accordingly, close the matter. It is made clear that this order will not prevent respondent No. 3 to approach the appropriate authority, having jurisdiction over respondent No. 3 and the petitioner, to constitute an appropriate committee for redressal of her grievances, which were the subject matter of her grievances before the Committee referred to above. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 20.12.2011 20.12.2011 Amit