KUNCHA CHANDRASEKHAR v. THE STATE OF AP

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 2 Pleased to condone the delay of 245 days in filing writ appeal against the orders dated 11-04-2023 in W.P. NO. 10333 of 2021, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the findings of the Learned Single Judge in order dated 11- 04-2023 in W.P. NO. 10333 of 2021, and pass Counsel for the Appellant:

1. CH NAGA MEHAR BABA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR SERVICES IV

2. POSANI AKASH The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND & THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA WRIT APPEAL No.48 of 2024 JUDGMENT:(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Battu Devanand) This Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 11.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.10333 of 2021.

2. Heard Mr. T.D.Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader for Services-I for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Posani Akash, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

3. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the writ petition for convenience.

4. The facts leading to the filing of present writ appeal are as herein under:- The respondent No.4 lodged a complaint before Suryaraopet Police Station, Vijayawada, alleging harassment at workplace by the petitioner and the same was registered as Crime No.6 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 354 (A), (D) and 509 of IPC. The respondent No.4 sent representation against the petitioner on 08.09.2020 to the High Court and the same was forwarded to the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Nyaya Seva Sadan, Courts Buildings, Vijayawada and the same was registered as PLC No.63 of 2020. A Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing him 4 to appear before the Committee on 28.11.2020. Petitioner appeared before the Committee and submitted his explanation and the said complaint was closed. Respondent No.4 also made a complaint before the Andhra Pradesh Women’s Commission on 08.09.2020 and the same was forwarded to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Tadepalli on

05.10.2020. Basing on the complaint made by respondent No.4, respondent No.3 issued Memo No.OPI/3875033/2020 dated 27.10.2020 and appointed an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). Internal Complaints Committee issued a notice to the petitioner to attend the enquiry on 03.11.2020. Internal Complaints Committee submitted its report. Basing on the same, the respondent No.3 issued a memo dated 01.02.2021, cautioning the petitioner to be more careful in the workplace. The respondent No.2 pursuant to the communication from Andhra Pradesh Women’s Commission, with the same set of allegations ordered enquiry calling report from the Local Complaint Cell (LCC), Krishna District. The said committee conducted enquiry and, inturn, submitted report to the respondent No.2. Pursuant to the said report, respondent No.2 sent letter dated 24.02.2021 to respondent No.3. Basing on the same, respondent No.3 issued proceedings dated 07.04.2021, informing the petitioner that in the enquiry conducted by LCC, allegations were proved and directed him to submit explanation. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated

07.04.2021 issued by the respondent No.3, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the writ petition. 5

5. After hearing both sides and on careful perusal of the material available on record and by following the findings and observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. and others Vs. Harish Chandra and others1, Union of India Vs. S.B. Vohra2, Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain3 and Mani Subrat Jain Vs. State of Haryana4, learned Single Judge of this Court held that petitioner having submitted explanation, could have waited till an order is passed by the competent authority. Learned Single Judge also observed that, if any order is passed by an authority, the appeal would lie under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, learned Single Judge opined that there is no illegality in the notice issued by the respondent No.3. Since the petitioner submitted explanation, it was directed that the respondent No.3 shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording opportunity. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Appeal is filed.

6. It is an admitted fact that against the show cause notice dated

07.04.2021 issued by the respondent No.3, the present writ petition is filed. The petitioner also submitted explanation to the said show cause notice. At first, against the show cause notice, the petitioner is not entitled to file writ petition invoking Article 226 unless there is any malice or without jurisdiction or without authority. But in the present case, the respondent No.3 is the competent authority to issue show cause notice to the petitioner. Second thing