The High Court · 2025

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 ...RESPONDENTS IANo"2 oF2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying tha: in the circums in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, *: *lon court may tances stated be Pleased to condonethedelayof(92)daysinfilingtheWritAppeal IANO:3 OF 2025 Petition under Section in the affidavit filed in suppo susPend the order Passed in 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated .t of tn" petition' the High Court may be pleased to *.r.*o. 14202 I2024'Dated' 13 03 2025 counserf ortheApperra"t;r:#,ifHtYlSF#J-"+PLEADER nb-oi' aovoc ArE G E NERAL counser for the Respondents: sRr D' PJ$HTTSRRJ-SFUffi ou ruseu The Court made the fottowing: ORDER l THE IION'BLE THE CHIEF' JUSTICE SRI AP TIIE HO I{'BLE AND SRI JUSTI CEG .M.MO HITID DIN WRIT APPEAL No.837 of 2025 SINGH JUDGMENT: 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 representing Sri A.Naren Rudra, learned counsel for the respondent, as well. Counsel,

2. 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.

3. 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 2 t,, dated 24.05'2024 (Annexure P.1). Being aggrieved' he approached the writ court in the impugned writ petitton' The learned writ court' after hearing the case of the parties andbasedonthepieadingsonrecord'afterreferenceto certain decisrons of the APex Court was of the considered view that the transfer order suffers from serious infirmities and warrants interference of the court lt was accordingly set aside. The relieving ord'er dated 25 'O5 '2024 rvas also set aside. The learned writ court' however' proceeded to observe that , keeping in uieu,t the sensitiuitll and seriousness of the issue' this order shall not preclude the approPiate action against tle autttonties from taking strictty in accordance tuith lati'' petitioner, if tuarranted, The respondent had raised the grievance that the transfer order was only on account of an enquiry into 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 prohibition and Redressa4 at Wo*ptace (prevenyion, 4c t,2ol3 (hereinafter reGrred ,i l 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.

4. 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 / 4 n t Committee. The emPloYer has' in its discretion on transferred the resPondent to administrative grounds' another Government Medical College on an equivalent post' It appears that taking note of the background enquiry' the learned writ court was Persuaded to hold that the transfer order is Punitirre in nature'

5. As 1,,'e have observed above' the transfer order' on the face of it, does not appear to be punitive in nature' There is no sttgma or reflection of any action based upon the the victim apparent on a reading of the complaint of It is within the domain of the employer to transfer order. transfer an empioyee on administrative grounds' The provisions of the Act of 2013 aiso contemplate a situatlon where during the pendency of the compiaint' the aggrieved victim or the respondent can be transferred to any other workplace. If the transfer has been made on purely administrativegroundsthoughinthebackgroundofan enquiry being instituted at the behest of the victim student of the department, it cannot be stated to be punitive in nature. The complaint was made on O8'05'2024' The 5 transfer order is dated of the interim order pas the learned writ court grven effect to.

24.05.2024. However, on account sed in favour of the respondent by the transfer order has not been

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

7. In the aforesaid facts ald clrcumstances and the transfer Governm should j background discussed above, we are of the opinion that the order not being punitive in nature, the respondent oin the post as proferssor of CT Surgery in the 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 6 ': enquiries be given a conclusive end in accordance with 1aw after following the procedure and taking into consideration the recommendation' if any made by the Complaints Needless to saY' the appellants-emPloYer wouid take a decision on the question of repatriation of the immediately after the conclusion of the Committee re spondent enqu1ry. The imPugned order passed bY the learned Single B Judge is set aside and the writ aPPeal a1lo'r.,,,e d. However, there shali be no order as to costs' 1S accordinglY Miscellaleous applications pending' if any' shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDI .K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER / I To,

1. Two CCs to ADDL ADVOCATE GENERAL' High Court for the State of 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- HIGH COURT DATED:0510812025 JUDGMENT WA.No.837 o12025 hiE S C [BSEP?M G) * sF..Are,' ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS %c"P("& fu.