CWP No. 22109 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22109 of 2011 Date of Decision: 14th December,2011 Rishi Raj Gautam .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ..Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER. Present: :-Mr. Abhishek Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana. MAHESH GROVER. J. (ORAL). The petitioner impugnes his transfer on the ground that it is not a measure of an administrative act but has been passed on the basis of some complaint of sexual harassment which the petitioner faced in the year 2007, and in which he has been acquitted after facing trial. Reference has been made by the petitioner to Annexure P-3 which is a note by the Chief Minister recommending the transfer of the petitioner on administrative grounds and in this note a complaint in which the petitioner faced trial and acquitted has also been appended. This has led to impression to the petitioner that he has been transferred on a complaint in which he has been acquitted . The respondents have filed reply and have referred to the antecedents of the petitioner to say that the petitioner was involved in FIR No 246 dated 11.6.2001, registered under Sections 376/34/120-B of IPC at Police Station City Jind, when he was under CWP No. 22109 of 2011 -2- probation. The petitioner was also working in the Local Bodies Department and because of this a decision was taken on 25th of June 2001 to repatriate him to his parent department. The petitioner then challenged this action of the respondent by filing CWP No11655 of 2001 which was partly allowed and the order impugned therein was quashed and the petitioner was deemed to have continued in service with respondent Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner was then taken back in the Health Department, Haryana, which he joined subsequently on 19.12.2001. It is to be noticed, that the petitioner has earned his acquittal in the case registered under Section 376 because of the reason that the prosecutrix was declared hostile. The petitioner was charge-sheeted under Rule VII of Haryana Civil Services (Punishment Appeal) Rules 1987. This charge-sheet was subsequently withdrawn in view of the acquittal of the petitioner. Subsequently the respondent No.4 levelled allegations against the petitioner for making lewd gesture and indulging in obscene acts which led to another FIR No.146 of 2007 registered under Section 294 of IPC at Police Station Ambala City. The petitioner was tried for the said offences but was acquitted. It is this complaint which has probably been referred in the note Annexure P-3. The respondents has further referred to Annexures R-1 and R-2 which are complaints dated 11.11.2011 which points out to his conduct of making unnecessary demands and vitiating the atmosphere of the workplace with special reference to the female employees who suffer the brunt of his activities. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion, that CWP No. 22109 of 2011 -3- no fault can be found with the action of the respondents as they are very well within their rights to transfer an employee from a place in the eventuality of his presence being found to disturb and spoil the atmosphere of the workplace. Such matter can also be viewed in the interest of administrative compulsions. The plea that in the complaint of sexual harassment, he stands acquitted and therefore, he cannot be transferred on this ground is also fallacious, for the reason that acquittal in a criminal case can be a result of insufficiency of quality evidence but for administrative reasons, action can be based on preponderance of probabilities and the action complained of being a transfer is not a punishment. The respondents who are the employers can always evaluate the situation and take action to ensure that a workplace is free from disturbing influence and take appropirate steps in this regard. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed. The respondents are at liberty to take essential disciplinary action against the petitioner, if they so choose to do by taking cognizance of the complaints and conduct of the petitioner. 14.12.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) aarti JUDGE