Devadasa P Vs Superintendent Of Post Offices Kasaragod Division, Kasaragod- 671121 & Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam 9 Oct 2023 Original Application No. 180, 00469 Of 2023 (2023) 10 CAT CK 0017
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Original Application No. 180, 00469 Of 2023

Hon'ble Bench

K. Haripal, Member (J)

Advocates

Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil, Ashok Suresh

Final Decision

Disposed Of

Acts Referred
  • Sexual Harassment Of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 14

Judgement Text

Translate:

K.Haripal, Member J

1. Heard Shri.Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri.Ashok Suresh, ACGSC takes notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3.

2. The back ground of this Original Application is the Annexure A-2 complaint preferred by one Shanthakumari P, the then acting Postmaster of Kumbla against the applicant regarding his uncooperative nature and disrespectful behaviour against her. That complaint was taken by the 4th respondent as a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013, hereinafter referred to as the Act. But when the Internal Complaints Committee conducted enquiry, the said de facto complainant clarified that she did not raise any allegation of sexual harassment against the applicant. The Committee has considered the same and found that there is nothing to attract the provisions of the Act and thus, exonerated the applicant. According to the applicant, the Annexure A-2 complaint was referred to the Internal Complaints Committee, established solely for probing allegations of sexual harassment in work place, with the malafide intention of tarnishing and harassing him. He attributes malicious attempt of the 4th respondent, designed to smear his reputation. Thereafter, the applicant submitted Annexure A-6 representation before the 2nd respondent for initiating appropriate action and the present grievance of the applicant is that the representation given under Section 14 of the Act has not been acted upon.

3. I heard the learned counsel on both sides.

4. The limited grievance of the applicant is that Annexure A-6 has not been considered and acted upon. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant will be satisfied if a direction is given to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Annexure A-6 representation within a time frame.

5. Having gone through the materials, there shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Annexure A-6 representation within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. The Original Application is disposed of as above. No costs.

(Dated this the 9th day of October, 2023)

From The Blog
Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Madras High Court to Hear School’s Plea Against State Objection to RSS Camp on Campus
Read More
Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Feb
07
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court Quashes Ban on Medical Students’ Inter-College Migration, Calls Rule Arbitrary
Read More