1 W.P.No.4072 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4072 OF 2011 Aparna D/o Krishnakumar Thete @ Aparna W/o Mukesh sedamkar ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.L. Sagar Killarikar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 & 2; Mr R.N. Dhorde, Advocate holding for Mr A.M. Karad for respondent no.3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 24th November, 2011 PER COURT : Heard. 2. The petitioner contends that she was holding post of Legal Advisor of the respondent - Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, 2 W.P.No.4072 of 2011 Aurangabad. Two Departmental Inquiries were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was suspended by an order dated 21st April, 2011. By a communication dated 16th March, 2011 the petitioner addressed her complaint against the Commissioner of Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad making allegations of harassment meted out to her by respondent no.4 herein. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr Sagar submitted that consequent to the complaint filed by the petitioner, the issue has been referred to the Maharashtra State Commission for Women. One Man Committee of Justice Sindhkar is appointed by the State to inquire into the matter. In the meanwhile, the Departmental Inquiry which was initiated by the Corporation was stayed by this Court. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that in view of the principles laid down in the judgment by the Apex Court in Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., AIR 1997 SC 3011 and the facts of the case and as the complaint filed by the petitioner is pending consideration of the Maharashtra State Commission for Women, the Departmental Inquiry shall be stayed and suspended till the report is submitted by the Committee. It was further submitted that the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department had also conducted inquiry and submitted report, which is placed on the record of this Court in a 3 W.P.No.4072 of 2011 sealed cover. The petitioner apprehends that in case the Departmental Inquiry is allowed to proceed then the same would prejudice the petitioner's case and, therefore, for maintaining complete transparency, holding of the Departmental Inquiry be stayed and suspended. 4. Learned Counsel Shri Sagar submitted that the Departmental Inquiry has been initiated with mala fide intention by the respondent - Commissioner, to give a counter blast to the complaint filed by the petitioner, which is now placed for consideration before the Commission. 5. The learned Counsel Shri Dhorde for respondent no.3 submits that the charges levelled in the two Departmental Inquiries initiated against the petitioner and the issue referred to the Maharashtra State Commission for Women are entirely different. In the facts of the case the Departmental Inquiries cannot be stayed, according to the learned Counsel. It is the contention of respondent no.3 that since the year 2007 there have been several serious complaints against the functioning of the petitioner as a Legal Advisor of the respondent - Corporation. The Counsel referred to various communications in this regard, copy of first information report, etc. It is, therefore, 4 W.P.No.4072 of 2011 contended that the Departmental Inquiries which are being conducted by independent Inquiry Officers be allowed to be conducted. 6. The learned A.G.P. Shri Kadam appearing for the State has placed on record a communication dated 23.11.2011 in respect of extension of time for the Committee to submit a report to the State. The Counsel submits that Justice Sindhkar Committee would be inquiring into the matter and submitting a report. 7. We have perused the orders passed by this Court earlier in the proceedings of this petition, perused the documents pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties on the limited issue as to whether the Departmental Inquiries need to be stayed till the Committee submits its report to the Commission. We have also perused the issues which would fall for consideration of the Inquiry Officer in the Departmental Inquiry. We have perused the complaint filed by the petitioner addressed to the Member of Maharashtra State Commission for Women and Commissioner, Child Development in respect of allegation of harassment meted out to the petitioner by the Commissioner of respondent no.3 - Corporation. It is stated that the petitioner is under suspension since 21.4.2011. 5 W.P.No.4072 of 2011 8. Considering the limited issue raised before this Court and the material placed before this Court, we are of the view that the Departmental Inquiries initiated against the petitioner need not be stayed. In the facts of the case and in view of the Maharashtra State Commission for Women being seized with the complaint of the petitioner, we direct that no final order in respect of the Departmental Inquiries shall be passed by the concerned Officer without seeking permission of this Court. It is clarified that this Court has not opined on merits of the issue raised by the contesting parties. Ad-interim relief granted earlier by this Court stands vacated. 9. It is expected that the Committee appointed by the Maharashtra State Commission for Women would complete the inquiry at the earliest. Petition stands disposed of. (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) amj/wp4072.11