1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.330 OF 2009 (Dr. (Mrs.) Asha w/o Akash Narde vs. Director General of Police and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND P.B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 20, 2009 Heard Shri Sudame, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Shri Sudame, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that grievance of the petitioner is in respect of harassment meted out to her at her work place by the concerned Officer working in the Central Police Reserve Force. It is contended that petitioner is a Medical Officer working in the said Department and because of harassment she had to go through the mental trauma and, therefore, made a complaint in this regard to the higher Authority 2 against the person responsible for causing her harassment at the work place. Shri Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General on the basis of instructions received from the competent Authority, placed on record document which reveals that on the representation of the petitioner, a fact finding enquiry in respect of the points raised in the representation was conducted by the D.I.G.P., C.R.P.F., Nagpur and the report is also submitted by the said Authority, which is under examination at the C.R.P.F. Directorate level. It is also mentioned in the said document that as per the outcome of the enquiry, appropriate action against the person responsible would be taken in accordance with law. Since report is already submitted by the D.I.G.P, C.R.P.F., Nagpur, which is under consideration of the Director, C.R.P.F., we do not want to express anything at this stage one way or the other on the merits of the matter and it is for the Director to take a decision in this regard on its own merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this 3 order and on the basis thereof, he shall take action in accordance with law, if necessary. The Apex Court in the decision in Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others {(1997) 6 SCC 241}, laid down comprehensive guidelines, which are required to be followed by the Departments of Central Government and State Governments. We also expect the Director, C.R.P.F. to consider those guidelines and act accordingly. In view of the above referred facts and circumstances, we do not want to keep the petition pending, hence, is disposed of by keeping the issues raised in the petition open. JUDGE JUDGE khj