Allowed

The State of Telangana v. Dr. G. Srinivas

Telangana HC5 Aug 2025WA/837/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A professor of CT Surgery challenged his transfer to Government Medical College, Wanaparthy during a pending sexual harassment enquiry, and the writ court set it aside as punitive. The Division Bench held the transfer was administrative, not punitive, set aside the writ court order and directed him to join, with the enquiry to conclude within twelve weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal allowed; Single Judge's order dated 13.03.2025 set aside; respondent to join Wanaparthy post; enquiry to be concluded within 12 weeks; no costs.

The State of Telangana Vs Dr. G. Srinivas — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR ar rvbrJnlBlfrE^{oF rELANGANA}

¶2

I3488 I

¶3

TUESDAY,THE FIF rwo iH o ii si idll, Bii,E [, f", p,VE,

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE ( APARE.H KUMAR stNGH rHE HoNouR^J::TiN":rrcE .E SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

¶6

WRITAPPEALNO :83 70F 2025

¶7

Writ Appeal under Order dated.^.t 3_0s_,"J111",.'fdk'l:,i;tl:,i}iT:f ?f;?,i""J,"fi J?.,l,f^,&l,l*"

¶8

Between:

¶9

'1. The State of Telangana, Health Medical and F,

¶10

office at 3ro Froor- DME Buirding, DM and ,:i:,[:::,.""rr_1,,.lTli; Women,s College Road, Kutbi GuOa, Sultan Bazar '^{Koti' Hyderabad} 500095,

¶11

Represented by its Secretary

¶12

Directorate of Medical Education, Telangana, Office at g Fpe plus XCG DM and HS Campus, Kutbi Guda, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana _ 500 O01, Represented by the Director of lVedical Education.

¶13

Osmania Medical college, Office at 5-j_826, TurrebazKhan Road, Troop Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad, Telangana _ 500095, Represented by its principal.

¶14

4' Superintendent, osmania Generar Hospitar office at 15-5-104, Begum Bazar, Afzal Gunj, Hyderabad, Telangana 5000.12.

¶15

AND

¶16

...APPELLANTS

¶17

Dr. G. Srinivas, S/o. G. Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 60 years, Occ. Doctor, Rl/o 7-8, MLA Colony, Road No.t2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

IAN^{o"2 oF2025}

¶20

tances^stated Petition^{under Section 151 CPCprayingtha: in the circums} be Pleased^to in the^{affidavitfired in support of the petition, *:*lon court may} condonethedelayof(92)daysinfilingtheWritAppeal

¶21

IAN^O:3OF2025 151^{CPCprayingthat in the circumstancesstated} Petition^underSection .t of tn"^{petition'the High Court may be pleased to} in the^{affidavitfiled in suppo} *.r.*o.^{14202 I2024'Dated' 13 03 2025} susPend^{the order Passedin}

¶22

counserf^{ortheApperra"t;r:#,ifHtYlSF#J-"+PLEADER} nb-oi'^{aovocArEG E NERAL}

¶23

counser^{for the Respondents:sRr D' PJ$HTTSRRJ-SFUffiou ruseu}

¶24

The Court^{madethe fottowing:ORDER}

¶25

THE IION'BLE THE CHIEF' JUSTICE SRI AP SINGH AND TIIE HOI{'BLE SRI JUSTICEG.M.MOHITIDDIN

¶26

WRIT APPEAL No.837 of 2025

¶27

JUDGMENT:

¶28

Heard Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Speciai Government pleader attached to the office of the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants and Sri D.prakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri A.Naren Rudra, learned counsel for the respondent, as well.

¶29

This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03.2025 passed in W.p.No. 14202 of 2024, whereby the learned writ court has allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondent herein.

¶30

The respondent, professor and Head of the Department of CT Surgery, Osmania Medicai College, Hyderabad, has been translerred to Government Medical College, Wanaparthy, as professor of CT Surgery in the existing vacancy on administrative grouncls by the order

(

t,,

dated^{24.05'2024 (AnnexureP.1). Being aggrieved'he} approached^{the writ court in the impugnedwrit petitton'} The learned^{writ court' after hearing the case of the parties} andbasedonthepieadingsonrecord'afterreferenceto certain^{decisronsof the APexCourtwas of the considered} view that^{the transferorder suffers from serious infirmities} and warrants^{interference of the court lt was accordingly} set aside.^{The relievingord'er dated 25 'O5 '2024 rvas also} set aside.^{The learnedwrit court'however' proceeded to} observe^{that, keeping inuieu,t thesensitiuitll and} seriousness^{of the issue' this order shall not precludethe} approPiate^{action against tle} autttonties from^taking strictty in^{accordance tuith lati''} petitioner, if^tuarranted, The respondent^{had raised the grievancethat the transfer} order^{was onlyon account of an enquiryinto the complaint} iodged by a^{Post Graduate student for harassment ln} workplace. The^{complaint is dated OB'O5'2024 and a} preliminary enquiry has^{been conducted by the Internal} cornplaints committee as per the provisions 0f the SeXUaJ Flarassrnent of Women at Wo*ptace prohibition and Redressa4 4c (prevenyion, t,2ol3 (hereinafter

¶35

reGrred

¶36

¶37

to as, "the Act of 2OI3") In this background when the enquiry has not yet reached finality, the respondent was transferred and posted at Government Medical College, Wanaparthy, on an equivalent post of Professor of CT Surgery on administrative grounds. The learned writ court, being persuaded by the background facts, was of the oplnlon that the transfer order is punitive ln nature Therefore, it was set aside.

¶38

Section 12 under Chapter V of the Act of 2O13 provides for action during pendency of enquiry on a request made by the aggrieved woman, the Internal Committee or the Locai Committee, as the case may be. On recommendation to the employer, either the aggrieved woman or the respondent can be transferred to any other place. The aggrieved woman can also be granted leave for a period of three months. The employer has the discretion to grant such other relief to the aggrieved woman as may be prescribed. However, the transfer order on the face of it does not reflect that it is on the request of the aggrieved woman or on the recommendation of the Internal

n t

Committee.^{The emPloYerhas'in itsdiscretion on} transferred^{theresPondentto} administrative^grounds' another^{Government MedicalCollege on an equivalent post'} It appears^{that taking note of the background enquiry'the} learned^{writ courtwas Persuadedto hold that the transfer} order^is Punitirre^{in nature'}

¶43

As 1,,'e have^{observed above' the transfer order' on the} face of^{it, does not appear to be punitivein nature' There} is no^{sttgmaor reflection of any action based upon the} the victim^{apparenton areading of the} complaint^of It is within^{the domain of the employer to} transfer^order. on administrative^grounds'The transfer an empioyee provisions^{of the Act of 2013 aiso contemplatea situatlon} where during^{the pendency of the compiaint' the aggrieved} victim or^{the respondentcan be transferredto any other} workplace.^{If the transfer has been made onpurely} administrativegroundsthoughinthebackgroundofan enquiry^{being instituted at the behest of the victimstudent} of the department,^{it cannot be stated to be punitive in} nature. The^{complaintwas made on O8'05'2024'The}

¶44

¶45

transfer order is dated 24.05.2024. However, on account of the interim order pas sed in favour of the respondent by the learned writ court the transfer order has not been grven effect to.

¶46

We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties

¶47

In the aforesaid facts ald clrcumstances and the background discussed above, we are of the opinion that the transfer order not being punitive in nature, the respondent should j oin the post as proferssor of CT Surgery in the Governm ent Medical College, Wanaparthy, without further delay. Th e enquiry being conducted on the complaint of the victim dated 0g.05.2024 has not reached its logical conclusion. The employer would ensure that the enquiry is concluded within a strict timeframe of twelve (12) weeks from today. The pendency of such enquiry in itsetf for a considerable length of time is in the nature of harassment to the victim and also the respondent, as the Sword of Damocles keeps hanging over the head of respondent as well It is also the objective of the Act of 2013 that such

¶48

¶49

¶50

enquiries^{be givena conclusiveend in accordance with 1aw} after^{following the procedure and taking into consideration} the^{recommendation' ifany made by the Complaints} Needless^{tosaY' the} appellants-emPloYer Committee wouid^{take a decision on the question of repatriationof the} immediately^{after theconclusion ofthe} re spondent enqu1ry.

¶51

B The imPugned^{orderpassedbY the learned Single} Judge^{isset aside and the writ aPPeal} 1S accordinglY a1lo'r.,,,e d.^{However, there shali be no order as to costs'}

¶52

Miscellaleous^{applicationspending'if any' shall}

¶53

stand closed.

¶54

To,

¶55

SDI.K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT^REGISTRAR //TRUE^COPY// I SECTION^OFFICER

¶56

Two CCs^{to ADDL ADVOCATEGENERAL' HighCourt for the Stateof}

¶57

¶58

aili$gi:sb[,'l#Ft"]rbt:1ff^{il?,tf8y,?ro-heS'ia'ieor} , If;53%1?,3;?#3lilit""'"s^{section , Hish court for the State of rerangana '} Hyderabad 5. Two CD Copies B I/1 LS {r-

¶59

HIGH COURT

¶60

DATED:0510812025

¶61

hiE S
C
[BSEP?M G)
*
sF..Are,'

¶62

JUDGMENT

¶63

WA.No.837^o12025

¶64

ALLOWING^{THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS}

¶65

% c"P("&
fu.

The State of Telangana v. Dr. G. Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Telangana v. Dr. G. Srinivas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Bharadwaj Auto Tech Private Limited Vs The Superintendent

S.Venkateshwara Rao Vs The Union of India

A.Prudhvishwar Reddy Vs Sports Authority of Telangana

M/s Adarsh Global Traders and Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India

The Chief General Manager (Commercial) Vs Abbineni Narayana Rao

Abbineni Narayana Rao Vs The Chief General Manager (Commercial)