Sri N Ramachandra Reddy Vs the Director

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD DT.16.1.10 PASSED ON A.I.D.98/01 BY THE HON'BLE IN THE COURT OF ADDL. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE VIDE ANN-AL.DIRECT THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER INTO THE SERVICES IN THE RESPONDENT INSTITUTE WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

¶16

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14^TH JANUARY, 2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

2 -

¶18

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is assailing the award dated 16.01.2010 in A.I.D. No.98/2001 before the Additional Industrial Tribunal, Bengaluru. In terms of the said award, the petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('Act, 1947') is rejected.

¶22

The respondent/employer, after disciplinary

¶23

enquiry, dismissed the petitioner from the service. The petitioner was subjected to disciplinary enquiry on the charge of eve-teasing and insulting womanhood, using filthy and vulgar language especially against Kumari B.R. Bhanumathi Yadav.

¶24

The petitioner was appointed as Librarian on 18.07.1984 in the respondent institution. Petitioner claims to have joined Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangha in February, 1998 and alleges that he was kept under suspension subsequent to 8 days strike called upon by the Union.

¶25

On 28.08.1989 a charge memo was served against the petitioner alleging two charges against him.

¶26

3 -

¶27

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶28

Article 1:-

¶29

That Sriyuths.N.Ramachandra Reddy and H. Siddappa, Librarians (under suspension) working in NIMHANS have been in the habit of eve teasing and insulting womanhood using filthy and vulgar language especially against Kum.B.R.Bhanumathi Yadav, thereby violated Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

¶30

Article 2:-

¶31

That Sriyuths.N.Ramachandra Reddy and H.Siddappa, Librarians (under suspension) working in NIMHANS, on 15.6.89 in NIMHANS Bus, teased and outraged the modesty of Kum.Bhanumathi Yadav, Librarian, and thereby violated Rule 3 (1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules of 1964."

¶32

The petitioner disputed the charges. Thereafter, a disciplinary enquiry was held on 18.01.1993. The enquiry officer submitted a report dated 30.06.1993 holding that the first of the aforementioned charges is proved. A second showcause notice dated 09.02.1993 was issued to the petitioner proposing penalty of removal from service. The petitioner replied to the said notice contesting the findings and the disciplinary authority removed the petitioner from employment.

¶33

The petitioner assailed the said order and on 16.09.2004 the petitioner's claim before the Tribunal in AID No.98/2001 was accepted and penalty of dismissal was set-

¶34

4 -

¶35

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶36

aside. The respondent filed Writ Petition No.15434/2005 assailing the said award, the same was allowed in part and matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal thereafter dismissed the petition in terms of the impugned award on 16.01.2010.

¶37

The respondent-employer claims that Kumari Bhanumathi Yadav on 11.08.1988 reported to the Chairperson of the Library Committee that some of the staff members were harassing her by making bad and insulting comments. It is alleged that the Chairperson of the Library Committee reported the matter to the Director on 22.08.1988.

¶38

The respondent-employer alleged that on 03.03.1989 Kumari Bhanumathi Yadav made a complaint to the Chief Librarian alleging that the petitioner made bad remarks against Kumari Bhanumathi Yadav and her colleague Smt. Lalitha Koti and the Chief Librarian summoned the petitioner on 04.03.1989 and he was warned.

¶39

It is also the case of the employer that on 12.04.1989 one more complaint was filed before the Chief Librarian by Kumari Bhanumathi Yadav against the petitioner

¶40

5 -

¶41

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶42

and one Siddappa alleging that they have used bad words against the petitioner.

¶43

The respondent has also alleged that on 15.06.1989 it has received a complaint from Kumari Bhanumathi Yadav wherein she alleged that petitioner and Siddappa outraged her modesty.

¶44

Referring to the aforementioned alleged incidents, two charges were framed as noted above.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge levelled against the petitioner relates to the alleged habit of eve teasing and he was targeted by the management for his leadership role in the Trade Union activities.

¶46

It is urged that the evidence before the enquiry officer were not considered in proper perspective and though there is no evidence to prove the charges even by applying test of preponderance of probability, the enquiry officer erroneously held that one of the charges is proved.

¶47

Attention of the Court is drawn to the deposition of the complainant Kumari Bhanumathi Yadav. In her deposition dated 06.02.1990, complainant has categorically stated that

¶48

6 -

¶49

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶50

she filed two complaints, one on 03.03.1989 and another on 12.04.1989 to the Chief Librarian. In the complaint, the date of complaint is mentioned as 13.03.1989 whereas the Chief Librarian has endorsed the said complaint on 04.03.1989. It is urged that in the complaint dated 13.03.1989 there cannot be a signature/endorsement of the Librarian on 04.03.1989 and same casts a serious doubt about the authenticity of the complaint given the fact that the original complaint is not produced.

¶51

It is also urged that the original complaint is not produced and enquiry proceeded on a Xerox copy.

¶52

On perusal of the complaint, it is noticed that the complaint is not dated 03.03.1989 as alleged. It is dated 13.03.1989. It is true that the original complaint is not produced. However, it is not a serious defect in the enquiry given the fact that the complainant has not disputed the authenticity of the copy of the complaint and even the petitioner has not raised contention that the complainant has not lodged any complaint. It is not the case of the petitioner that contents of the original are different from the copy produced in the enquiry.

¶53

7 -

¶54

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶55

Learned counsel of the petitioner referring the contents of the complaint and the evidence urged that, in the complaint it is stated that one Smt. Lalita Koti was present in the Library when the alleged incident referred to in the complaint occurred. However, Smt. Lalita Koti in her crossexamination stated that she is not in a position to remember whether the incident took place on 03.03.1989 or not.

¶56

It is pointed out that that the disciplinary authority relied on the statements of SW-5 Smt. D. Sukumariamma, the Assistant Administrative Officer and SW-3 Smt. T. Linganna. However, the complaint does not refer to their presence at the time of alleged incident.

¶57

Learned counsel would also urge that the time gap between the proceedings in the meeting dated 11.08.1988 (where it is alleged that the petitioner’s alleged misconduct is said to be discussed) and alleged incident dated 03.03.1989 would suggest that the incident referred to in the proceeding dated 11.08.1988 and the incident referred to in the complaint dated 03.03.1989 cannot be related to each other.

¶58

Assailing the fairness of the enquiry, it is urged in the order dated 07.08.1992 the enquiry officer has observed

¶59

8 -

¶60

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶61

that if production of original document, i.e. the complaint dated 15.06.1989 said to be in the handwriting of the complainant, the charge would not be considered, however the adverse finding is recorded against the petitioner without original document.

¶62

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the exact words said to have been used by the petitioner were not stated in the evidence and when the petitioner sought to know the same, the question was disallowed in the cross examination which according the petitioner would cast a serious doubt about the fairness of the enquiry.

¶63

Learned counsel would also urge that the alleged vulgar words said to have been used against the complainant are not made part of the charge memo and are not disclosed in the evidence and that being the position, the enquiry officer could not have held that the petitioner is in the habit of eveteasing.

¶64

It is urged that the Tribunal has not appreciated the contention in a proper perspective and has erred in rejecting the petition.

¶65

9 -

¶66

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶67

Learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that in C.C. No.1445/1989 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru filed against the petitioner he was acquitted of charges in terms of judgment dated 19.07.1990 as such, the petitioner should have been exonerated of the charges.

¶68

Alternatively, it is submitted that, assuming that the petitioner is guilty of charges, the petitioner is discriminated and dismissed from service though his colleague H. Siddappa, was reinstated though the charges leveled against both were one and the same.

¶69

Learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on the following judgments:-

¶70

"1. Sengara Singh & Others V/s State of Punjab & Others¹

¶71

2. Ved Prakash Gupta V/s M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd²

¶72

3. P.D.Gupta V/s Reserve Bank of India³

¶73

1 (1983) 4 SCC 225

¶74

2 (1984) 2 SCC 569

¶75

3 (1989) 59 FLR 216 (Del)

¶76

10 -

¶77

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶78

4. V.K Jaiswal V/s Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Lucknow and Another⁴

¶79

5. Deepak Laxman Sarnobat V/s Union of India and Others⁵

¶80

6. M Rajamanickam V/s The Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Tiruchirappalli⁶

¶81

7. Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India and others V/s K.Chamy⁷

¶82

8. A.P. SRTC V/s Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad⁸ ".

¶83

Learned counsel for the respondent/institution

¶84

would submit that the petitioner was tried for serious misconduct. He along with one H. Siddappa used derogatory words against the colleague namely Smt. Bharati Yadav and charge is very specific and unambiguous, wherein, it is stated that the petitioner and another colleague H. Siddappa are in the habit of eve-teasing and insulting womanhood using filthy and vulgar language against Kumari B.R. Bhanumathi Yadav.

¶85

4 (1995) 70 FLR 532 (All)

¶86

5 (1995) 70 FLR 164 (Bom)

¶87

6 1997-2-L.W.941 - 16TH April 1997/WA No.988/1991

¶88

7 (1998) 2 LLJ 530

¶89

8 (2007) 1 SCC 222

¶90

11 -

¶91

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶92

It is also urged that there is one more charge against the petitioner and H. Siddappa wherein, it is stated that on 15.06.1989 both of them teased and outraged the modesty of Kumari B.R. Bhanumathi Yadav and that the petitioner and H. Siddappa are in the habit of eve-teasing, and insulting womanhood. There were several complaints against the petitioner and on 11.08.1988 in the meeting held in the department, Kumari Bhanumathi Yadav reported to the Chairperson of the Library Committee that some staff members are harassing and commenting and insulting badly and insulting womanhood. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that on 22.08.1988, the Chairperson reported the matter to the Director.

¶93

It is also urged that Kumari Bhanumathi Yadav in a representation addressed to the Chief Librarian has complained against the petitioner alleging that he has made derogatory remarks against her and Smt. Lalita Koti by referring to the exact words said to have been uttered

¶94

12 -

¶95

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶96

by the petitioner and the Chief Librarian has summoned

¶97

the petitioner and he was warned.

¶98

It is submitted on 12.04.1989 Kumari

¶99

Bhanumathi Yadav addressed one more complaint to the Chief Librarian against the petitioner about the bad words used by the petitioner.

¶100

Learned counsel for the respondent would urge

¶101

that the enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry, analysed the evidence led before him and submitted a report holding that the first charge relating to eve-teasing and insulting womanhood by using filthy and vulgar language is established.

¶102

Learned counsel for the respondent would also allege that the petitioner did not cooperate in the departmental enquiry and even assaulted the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer had to be changed and new enquiry officer was appointed. After receiving the report, wherein the enquiry officer concluded that the charge of eve-teasing is established, a second show cause notice

¶103

13 -

¶104

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶105

was issued and after affording opportunity, the disciplinary authority has rightly imposed penalty of dismissal from service.

¶106

In addition, the learned counsel for the respondent would also urge that another employee namely H. Siddappa against whom the same charges were levelled, tendered apology admitting the charge and he was reinstated by accepting the apology, and thereafter, said employee tendered resignation.

¶107

Learned counsel for the respondent would urge that the Tribunal has considered material evidence on record in a proper perspective and came to the right conclusion based on preponderance of probabilities. Merely because the petitioner is acquitted of the charge in a criminal proceeding relating to the incident dated 15.06.1989, cannot be a ground to give a clean chit to the petitioner in respect of the first charge which is not related to the incident dated 15.06.1989 which was subject matter of trial in criminal proceedings.

¶108

14 -

¶109

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶110

It is also urged that the scope of enquiry in this

¶111

petition would be limited and the award cannot be

¶112

interfered with as it does not suffer from perversity.

¶113

Learned counsel for the respondent would also invite the attention of the Court to the written submissions filed by the petitioner wherein, the petitioner has made reckless allegations against the complainant and would urge that the allegations made in the written submissions would also point to the strong possibility that he used insulting and abusive words against the complainant.

¶114

Learned counsel for the respondent/institution would rely on the following judgments:-

¶115

1. Pravin Kumar vs. Union of India⁹

¶116

2. Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K.Chopra¹⁰

¶117

3. Bharath Heavy Electrical Works Ltd. Vs. M Chandrashekhar Reddy¹¹ "

¶118

9 (2020) 9 SCC 1471

¶119

10 (1999) 1 SCC 759

¶120

11 (2005) 2 SCC 481

¶121

15 -

¶122

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶123

The Court has considered the contentions raised

¶124

at the Bar and perused the records.

¶125

It is to be noticed that the witnesses have been examined on behalf of the establishment and one among them (other than the complainant) is said to be an eye witness.

¶126

The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record has observed that in the department, petitioner and one H. Siddappa were male the only male employees.

¶127

Though the complainant has not referred to any individual in one of the complaints, which was subject matter of a discussion in the meeting in the year 1988, one of the witnesses has made a statement that she believed that complaint lodged by the complainant would refer to petitioner and H. Siddappa. The Tribunal has held that such statement cannot be straightway accepted. However, on considering the evidence of another employee has come to the conclusion that the evidence of SW-2 is corroborated from circumstantial evidence that the petitioner and H. Siddappa were working as Librarians at a relevant point of time.

¶128

The Tribunal has also taken into account that both the petitioner and H. Siddappa had raised grievance against the

¶129

16 -

¶130

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶131

decision of the management not posting complainant and ladies staff for night duty.

¶132

It is also noticed from the impugned award that the Tribunal has analysed the evidence relating to the incident dated 03.03.1989. According to the respondent the incident dated 03.03.1989 is witnessed by SW-3 T. Linganna and said incident took place near the Library counter. It has referred to the Exhibit-D2 the duty roster and one Mr. Sheshaiah had a duty from 07:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. on that day. The duty register would indicate that the duty of SW-3 T. Linganna commenced at 2:00 p.m. However, the alleged incident took place between 10 to 10:30 a.m. and in this behalf he states that he was officiating on behalf of the someone else who was absent on that day.

¶133

In his evidence, SW-3 has also stated that SW-6 P. Sulochana was also present at the time of incident and analysing said evidence, the Tribunal has discarded the evidence of T. Linganna.

¶134

Evidence of SW-4 Smt. Lalita Koti is analysed by the Tribunal. Smt. Lalita Koti said to be eye witness to the incident dated 03.03.1989 as well as incident dated 15.06.1989.

¶135

17 -

¶136

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶137

Admittedly, the second charge relating to the incident dated 15.06.1989 is not proved in the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal has also held that evidence of SW-3 cannot be accepted to hold that he is a witness to the alleged incident dated 03.03.1989. The Tribunal also did not give much weightage to the evidence of SW-6 P. Sulochana who stated that she was only present when petitioner was warned.

¶138

The Tribunal has referred to the contents of the complaint dated 03.03.1989 and 12.04.1989 which are marked as Exhibits PO.4 and PO.5. Referring to the evidence of SW-1, SW-3 proceedings of the meeting dated 11.08.1988 and copies of the letters at Exhibit-D2, D8 addressed by the petitioner to the Director, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was complaining all along that the management adopted discriminatory attitude by allowing day shift to women employees and was complaining about the evening shift assigned to the petitioner.

¶139

The evidence of the complainant is appreciated in the backdrop of aforementioned circumstances and Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the charge relating to eveteasing and teasing the complainant and speaking in a manner

¶140

18 -

¶141

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶142

lowering the dignity of the woman is established. Merely because Smt. Lalita Koti in her cross-examination stated that she is not in a position to remember whether the incident took place on 03.03.1989 or not it cannot be said that he evidence is to be discarded. At the most one can say that she was not sure of the date of the incident.

¶143

It is also relevant to notice that the petitioner has submitted written submissions in the domestic enquiry and in his written submissions he had made a categorical statement that the complainant had an affair with a married man and that she is a lady of loose character and indulged in illegal affairs etc.

¶144

The Tribunal has also taken note of the contention urged before it- that statement made against the complainant in the written submission should be considered in the light of the petitioner's contention and that it was only aimed at discrediting the evidence of the complainant. The Tribunal has rejected the said contention.

¶145

The Court has also considered the statements made in the said written submissions. The statements made in paragraphs No.7 and 12 of the written submissions making

¶146

19 -

¶147

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶148

allegations against the complainant in a way probabalises the contention that the petitioner is a habitual eve teaser and used bad language against women staff.

¶149

As far as the contention relating to the judgment of acquittal in the criminal case is concerned, the said judgment does not come to the aid of the petitioner inasmuch as the said judgment refers to the alleged incident dated 15.06.1989 and the enquiry officer has held that the charge relating to the incident dated 15.06.1989 is not established.

¶150

The learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that charge No.1 is not specific and though it refers to habit of eve-teasing and insulting, the penalty of dismissal is imposed on the alleged incident dated 03.03.1989. The Court is of the view that the charge along with the imputation referred to in the charge memo would speak about the multiple incidents of using bad words against the complainant. It is also noticed that the Tribunal has followed the well established principles governing in the domestic enquiry where the proof is based on preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt.

¶151

20 -

¶152

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶153

Though it is urged that the petitioner is victimized by imposing a penalty of dismissal and another employee H. Siddappa against whom same charges were leveled was reinstated, it is to be noticed that H. Siddappa admitted the charges and tendered apology. The apology was accepted and thereafter, he was reinstated. The petitioner did not tender apology by admitting the charges. The petitioner contested the charges and charges are held to be proved. This being the position, the petitioner cannot complain that it is the case of discrimination.

¶154

The Court has also considered the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent. The judgments referred to above are rendered in the facts obtained in the said cases. Nevertheless, the Court has kept the ratio laid down in the aforementioned judgments. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner will not assist the petitioner to uphold the petitioner’s contention to set-aside the impugned award.

¶155

The Tribunal has also followed the well established principle that the finding of the domestic enquiry should not be disturbed as long as the view taken by the disciplinary authority

¶156

21 -

¶157

WP No. 25221 of 2012

¶158

is based on some material is a plausible view. Merely, because

¶159

one more view is plausible is not a ground to set aside the concurrent finding.

¶160

Considering the scope of enquiry in a petition of this nature, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not made out a case to take a view that the charge is not proved.

¶161

Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative has also urged that the penalty of dismissal from employment is disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and proved.

¶162

The Court is of the view that considering the charge alleged and proved and also considering the kind of allegation made against the complainant in the written submission, the petitioner is not entitled to any lenient view on the penalty.

¶163

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

¶164

Sd/-

¶165

(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶166

CHS

Sri N Ramachandra Reddy v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Ramachandra Reddy v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C Ramadas Vs R Devraj

Sri Krishnegowda Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Sri Imtiza Pasha Vs Sri Naushad Pasha

Sri Krishne Gowda Vs Special Land Acquisiton Officer

Mr. Shreyas R Reddy Vs Mrs. M K Chaya

Sri K M Arunkumar Vs Sri Srinivasa Reddy