Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 550 of 2021
Appellant :- Gyanesh Sharma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashok Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Anil Kumar Ojha,J.
Exemption Application Exemption Application is allowed.
The appellant is exempted from filing certified copy of the judgment dated 20.07.2021 to this appeal.
Order on Memo of Appeal Instructions received by learned Standing Counsel is taken on record.
By this appeal, a challenge is made to the judgment dated 20.07.2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/petitioner to challenge the order of suspension was dismissed.
The order of suspension was challenged alleging favourable finding on the charges. The learned Single Judge found that the allegation of sexual harassment exists against the appellant and accordingly it has to be considered by the Committee as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (AIR 1997 SC 3011), ((1997) 6 SCC 241).
Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to a report where finding has been recorded against the appellant as well as the female Ragini Agrawal. Both of them are having rivalry affected the environment of the educational institution and accordingly respondents have placed both of them under suspension.
It has come on record that the appellant has now been served with charge-sheet containing various allegations. Since the copy of the charge-sheet was served during the pendency of the appeal, we are not making any comment in regard to the allegations contained therein but find no reason to cause interference in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The argument of learned counsel for appellant that appellant has been exonerated in the inquiry is contrary to record. The disciplinary inquiry would now proceed pursuant to the charge- sheet.
Earlier was only a report containing version of the appellant and Ragini Agrawal but prima-facie the case was found against the appellant.
The respondents took a wise decision to suspend both of them to avoid disturbance in environment of the educational institution. We do not find any reason to cause interference in the judgment of learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The respondents would however be expected to complete the inquiry at the earliest.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Nirmal Sinha
(Anil Kumar Ojha, J.) (Munishwar Nath Bhandari, A.C.J.)