IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO.38701 OF 2014 (S-CAT) BETWEEN:
1. KIOCL Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise), II Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034. Represented by its Company Secretary (Earlier), Now represented by General Manager (HR), Mr.S.Rajendra.
2. Shri.K.Ranganath, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The Disciplinary Authority, M/s. KIOCL Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise), II Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034.
3. Complaints Committee, Represented by its Chair Person, Smt.R.Sunitha, Dy.Manager (Systems), M/s. KIOCL Limited, (A Government of India Enterprise), II Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034. Now represented by Smt.Asha Kiran. … PETITIONERS (By Smt.K.Subha Ananthi, Advocate for M/s. Kasturi Associates) AND:
Mr.T.Ramesh, Son of late Thangavelu, Aged about 49 years, R/o 9-C, KIADB Colony, Industrial Area, Baikampady, Mangaluru-575 011. … RESPONDENT (By Sri.N.G.Phadke, Advocate) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 1.7.2014 passed in O.A.No.32/2012 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Annexure- A.
This Writ Petition coming on for Hearing this day, Ravi Malimath J., passed the following:
O R D E R Aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench, dated 01.07.2014 in O.A. No.32 of 2012, the respondents therein have filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners addressed arguments on merits. The learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order.
3. However, on hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. In an identical circumstance this Court in Writ Petition Nos.38269-270 of 2014, by the Order dated 04.01.2019, a similar matter was considered by this Court. A reference was made therein, with regard to the Tribunal hearing four cases together. This appears to be one among them. The impugned order herein is similar to the one which was passed in the connected matters. Here also, the Tribunal commences its judgment by the same poem, relying on pages after pages and rendering an erroneous judgment. The impugned order does not appear to be a right understanding of the case. Here too, the Tribunal goes beyond limit and holds that Sections 4 and 7 of the Sexual Harassment Act No.14 of 2013 is unconstitutional etc. The manner in which the impugned order has been written is in identical terms to the aforesaid order referred to above. All these issues have been dealt with in extenso by us in the earlier order. We do not think it necessary to repeat the same observations herein, especially in view of the fact that the order of the Tribunal is on similar lines. Therefore, this petition too is disposed off on the same terms.
4. Consequently, the order dated 01.07.2014 passed in O.A. No.32 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench is set-aside.
The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration in accordance with law and to be heard and disposed off before any other Bench other than the Bench, which passed the impugned order.
Till the disposal of the matter before the Tribunal, the petitioners herein are directed not to precipitate the matter.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE sac*