Anoop Kumar Saini vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record. Notices to respondent nos. 5 & 6 are hereby dispensed with. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

22.08.2025, whereby, the recommendation for removal of the petitioner from services was made. The identical matter has already been dealt with, finally, in the Writ A No.10724 of 2025, vide order dated 17.09.2025, which is extracted as under:- "1. Instructions passed on today to the Court sent by Chief Medical Officer, Veerangana Jhalkari bai Mahila Chikitsalaya, Lucknow by Sri Rajiv Singh Chauan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel be kept on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4.

3. No notice need be issued to the respondent no. 5 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

4. With the consent of learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

5. The petitioner, an outsource nurse working in the Veerangana Jhalkari Bai, Mahila Chikitsalaya, Lucknow is aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow has recommended for removal of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 and to send a 2 WRIA No. 13430 of 2025 replacement. The said recommendation has been made to the service provider.

6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working since the year 2016 as a Staff Nurse on a outsource basis. There is no complaint against the working of the petitioner.

7. On account of the harassment which was being meted out by the respondent no. 6, she preferred a complaint. The respondents have thereafter passed the order impugned dated 22.08.2025 removing her and requiring the service provider to send a replacement.

8. On the other, Sri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel on the basis of instructions sent by Chief Medical Officer of the hospital dated

10.09.2025 has argued that a complaint of sexual harassment was submitted by the petitioner against the respondent no. 6. A committee as required to be formed under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013") was formed.

9. The committee has considered the complaint as submitted by the petitioner against the respondent no. 6 in terms of the rules as have been issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development more particularly Rule 7 of the said Rules namely Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013.

10. Placing reliance on the report of the committee dated 21.08.2025, contention of Sri Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel is that the statement of the petitioner was only found to be partially true but at the same time considering the conduct of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6 for the which a show cause notice had also been issued to the petitioner on 13.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition as such, the committee has found both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 to be guilty of the incident which has led to tarnishing of the reputation of the hospital and thus the committee has recommended for immediate removal of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 and a recommendation has been made to the service provider. Thus, it is contended that there is no infirmity in the order impugned.

11. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and having perused the records, it emerges that admittedly the petitioner had submitted a complaint of sexual harassment against the respondent no. 6. A committee as required under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act, 2013 was formed by the official respondents. The committee proceeded in accordance with Rule 7 the Rules, 2013 and has thereafter submitted its recommendation vide inquiry report dated 21.08.2025 for removal of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6. 3 WRIA No. 13430 of 2025

12. Incidentally, perusal of the inquiry report would indicate that the statement of the petitioner has been found to be partially proved.

13. The effect of a complaint against an individual being submitted by a lady and the said complaint being found to be false or malicious is provided for under Section 14 of the Act, 2013 which provides that in case the internal committee or the local committee arrives at a conclusion that the allegation against the respondent (against whom the complaint has been made) is malicious or the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has made the complaint knowing it to be false or the aggrieved woman or any other person has produced any forged or misleading document, it may recommend to the employer or the District Officer to take action against the women or the person who has made the complaint.

14. As already indicated above, a perusal of the inquiry report dated 21.08.2025 would indicate that the statement of the petitioner viz-a-viz the respondent no. 6 has been found to be partially proved meaning thereby that the complaint as submitted by the petitioner has not been found to be false or fallacious. Thus, clearly the action which has been taken by the committee recommending for removal of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 to the service provider cannot be said to be in consonance with Section 14 of the Act, 2013.

15. Another aspect of the matter is that the respondents purport to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 30.07.2025 pertaining to conduct of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6 on 30.07.2025.

16. The argument of Sri Chauhan regarding show cause notice is found to be fallacious considering the fact that once the committee had only been formed in terms of Section 4 (2) of the Act, 2013 and in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, 2013 consequently, it could have only inquired into the complaint as submitted by the petitioner of sexual harassment against the respondent no. 6 and thereafter the scope of the committee ended. As such, it could not have gone into the allegations as levelled in the show cause notice dated 30.07.2025 which was for the purpose of conduct of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 which according to the respondents had tarnished the reputation of the hospital. Thus, it is apparent that the said committee clearly went beyond the scope of its power considering Rule 7 of the Rules, 2013 and Section 14 of the Act, 2013.

17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.08.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioner, is set aside.

18. Consequences to follow.

19. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law against the petitioner regarding her conduct." 4 WRIA No. 13430 of 2025 In fact, on the same complaint the action was taken against the present petitioner including the petitioner namely, Sapna Devi, who approached this Court in aforesaid writ petition. The present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief as counsel for appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has failed to refute that the case is not identical to the case of Sapna Devi(supra). In this view of the matter, the order dated 22.08.2025 is hereby quashed. It is provided that the relief granted in the case of Writ A No. 10724 of 2025 vide order dated 17.09.2025 shall also be available to the present petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition is hereby disposed of, at the admission stage. November 19, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record. Notices to respondent nos. 5 & 6 are hereby dispensed with. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated

22.08.2025, whereby, the recommendation for removal of the petitioner from services was made. The identical matter has already been dealt with, finally, in the Writ A No.10724 of 2025, vide order dated 17.09.2025, which is extracted as under:- "1. Instructions passed on today to the Court sent by Chief Medical Officer, Veerangana Jhalkari bai Mahila Chikitsalaya, Lucknow by Sri Rajiv Singh Chauan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel be kept on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 4.

3. No notice need be issued to the respondent no. 5 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed.

4. With the consent of learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties, the instant writ petition is being finally decided.

5. The petitioner, an outsource nurse working in the Veerangana Jhalkari Bai, Mahila Chikitsalaya, Lucknow is aggrieved by the order dated 22.08.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition whereby the Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow has recommended for removal of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 and to send a 2 WRIA No. 13430 of 2025 replacement. The said recommendation has been made to the service provider.

6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been working since the year 2016 as a Staff Nurse on a outsource basis. There is no complaint against the working of the petitioner.

7. On account of the harassment which was being meted out by the respondent no. 6, she preferred a complaint. The respondents have thereafter passed the order impugned dated 22.08.2025 removing her and requiring the service provider to send a replacement.

8. On the other, Sri Rajiv Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel on the basis of instructions sent by Chief Medical Officer of the hospital dated

10.09.2025 has argued that a complaint of sexual harassment was submitted by the petitioner against the respondent no. 6. A committee as required to be formed under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2013") was formed.

9. The committee has considered the complaint as submitted by the petitioner against the respondent no. 6 in terms of the rules as have been issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development more particularly Rule 7 of the said Rules namely Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013.

10. Placing reliance on the report of the committee dated 21.08.2025, contention of Sri Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel is that the statement of the petitioner was only found to be partially true but at the same time considering the conduct of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6 for the which a show cause notice had also been issued to the petitioner on 13.07.2025, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition as such, the committee has found both the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 to be guilty of the incident which has led to tarnishing of the reputation of the hospital and thus the committee has recommended for immediate removal of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 and a recommendation has been made to the service provider. Thus, it is contended that there is no infirmity in the order impugned.

11. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the contesting parties and having perused the records, it emerges that admittedly the petitioner had submitted a complaint of sexual harassment against the respondent no. 6. A committee as required under the provisions of Section 4 (2) of the Act, 2013 was formed by the official respondents. The committee proceeded in accordance with Rule 7 the Rules, 2013 and has thereafter submitted its recommendation vide inquiry report dated 21.08.2025 for removal of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6. 3 WRIA No. 13430 of 2025

12. Incidentally, perusal of the inquiry report would indicate that the statement of the petitioner has been found to be partially proved.

13. The effect of a complaint against an individual being submitted by a lady and the said complaint being found to be false or malicious is provided for under Section 14 of the Act, 2013 which provides that in case the internal committee or the local committee arrives at a conclusion that the allegation against the respondent (against whom the complaint has been made) is malicious or the aggrieved woman or any other person making the complaint has made the complaint knowing it to be false or the aggrieved woman or any other person has produced any forged or misleading document, it may recommend to the employer or the District Officer to take action against the women or the person who has made the complaint.

14. As already indicated above, a perusal of the inquiry report dated 21.08.2025 would indicate that the statement of the petitioner viz-a-viz the respondent no. 6 has been found to be partially proved meaning thereby that the complaint as submitted by the petitioner has not been found to be false or fallacious. Thus, clearly the action which has been taken by the committee recommending for removal of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 to the service provider cannot be said to be in consonance with Section 14 of the Act, 2013.

15. Another aspect of the matter is that the respondents purport to have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 30.07.2025 pertaining to conduct of the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6 on 30.07.2025.

16. The argument of Sri Chauhan regarding show cause notice is found to be fallacious considering the fact that once the committee had only been formed in terms of Section 4 (2) of the Act, 2013 and in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules, 2013 consequently, it could have only inquired into the complaint as submitted by the petitioner of sexual harassment against the respondent no. 6 and thereafter the scope of the committee ended. As such, it could not have gone into the allegations as levelled in the show cause notice dated 30.07.2025 which was for the purpose of conduct of the petitioner and the respondent no. 6 which according to the respondents had tarnished the reputation of the hospital. Thus, it is apparent that the said committee clearly went beyond the scope of its power considering Rule 7 of the Rules, 2013 and Section 14 of the Act, 2013.

17. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.08.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioner, is set aside.

18. Consequences to follow.

19. However, it would be open for the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law against the petitioner regarding her conduct." 4 WRIA No. 13430 of 2025 In fact, on the same complaint the action was taken against the present petitioner including the petitioner namely, Sapna Devi, who approached this Court in aforesaid writ petition. The present petitioner is also entitled for the same relief as counsel for appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has failed to refute that the case is not identical to the case of Sapna Devi(supra). In this view of the matter, the order dated 22.08.2025 is hereby quashed. It is provided that the relief granted in the case of Writ A No. 10724 of 2025 vide order dated 17.09.2025 shall also be available to the present petitioner. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition is hereby disposed of, at the admission stage. November 19, 2025 Mayank (Shree Prakash Singh,J.) MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench