IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 30224 of 2008(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- MANJU S.P., W/O.SURESH MANAYANKATH, AGED 36 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KRISHIBHAVAN, POLPULLY, PALAKKAD RESIDING AT AKSHAYA, KANNIARPADAM, CHITTUR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN SRI.V.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (AGRICULTURE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 4. A.K.SIVANANDAN, THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 5. P.S.RADHAMANI, JOINT DIRECTOR, AR & T, CHAIRPERSON, ENQUIRY COMMITTEE (HARASSMENT OF WOMEN), DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 30224 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner, while working as Agricultural Officer at Pattancherry and was holding additional charge of Krishibhavan, Perumatty, raised complaints against the 4th respondent on sexual harassment. A committee was constituted with the 5th respondent as the Chairman for the purpose of conducting an enquiry into the allegations against the 4th respondent. Petitioner apprehended a partisan attitude on the part of the 5th respondent to save the 4th respondent, since the 5th respondent was a subordinate officer of the 4th respondent. The petitioner alleges non-compliance with the mandatory directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1997 SC 3011] in the matter of constituting committees to enquire into the allegations of sexual harassment. It is detailing those grievances the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “a. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, compelling and commanding the 1st respondent to abolish the committee constituted under the chairman ship of the WPC : 30244/08 -:2:- 5th respondent and constitute another committee as per the guidelines in Vishaka case under the leadership of the 2nd respondent and entrust the enquiry with the newly constituted committee on the harassment of the petitioner for conducting an impartial enquiry. b. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, compelling and commanding the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to see that the enquiry is conducted impartially and the report is submitted within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court; c. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, compelling and commanding the 1st respondent to place the 4th respondent under suspension for an impartial enquiry and for the investigation of criminal offence committed by him which are punishable under Section 354, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code. d. to declare that so long as the 4th respondent holding the office of the 3rd respondent, no truthful enquiry can be conducted by any authorities on the incident. e. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, compelling and commanding the 5th respondent not to proceed with the enquiry in such a way of saving the 4th respondent from the liabilities of sexual harassment of the petitioner in her place of employment and conclude the enquiry.” 2. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent submits that the 4th respondent has already retired from service in November 2008 and therefore the matter is purely academic. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite retirement of the 4th respondent, WPC : 30244/08 -:3:- the enquiry should be completed by a properly constituted committee and a report should be obtained. I do not find any point in such a futile exercise. An enquiry by the such committee can only be for the purpose of disciplinary action against the 4th respondent. As far as the criminal action is concerned, the petitioner has already approached the appropriate criminal court and FIR has been registered and criminal proceedings are progressing. In any event, the report of such committee cannot have any effect on the criminal prosecution insofar as in criminal prosecution facts have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt by adducing independent adequate evidence before the Criminal Court. Taking into account all the circumstances, I am of opinion that, as far as the present departmental proceedings are concerned, it should be given a quietus now, insofar as no further departmental action can be taken against the 4th respondent, he having retired from service. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ttb WPC : 30244/08 -:4:-