VERMA, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by petitioner Manjulata Gupta against the respondents with the prayer for posting of petitioner to some circle office and also to conduct the enquiry for the harassment being caused to petitioner lady by her colleagues.
(2.) THE petitioner is in service of postal department since 1983 and is working as Postal Assistant. She was transferred to Returned Letter Office, where she is sole lady employee and all other employees are male. It is the case of petitioner that since 1996 she was being harassed by male employees by uttering derogatory remarks and abuses, which falls in the parameter of obscenity. THE other employees were using filthy and vulgar language and it became difficult for petitioner to work at such a place. She filed repeated representations to the authorities but no action was taken. She had even named one Mohd. Hanif Khan, Postal Assistant, Suraj Group-D (IVth class employee), who was in the habit of uttering such vulgar words. She had made as many as 20 representations. According to petitioner the situation created by co-employees was so bad that it became difficult to her to work in such atmosphere. She had to take leave from 17. 11. 97 to avoid such sexual harassment, but was faced by the objection from the department in regard to her leave. She was being asked to explain about her absence vide annexure 23 and 24, which was replied by petitioner vide annexure 25. The petitioner continued to make request for her transfer. She had even approached to Rajasthan Legal Aid Board, Jaipur, who directed the respondent No. 2 to investigate the matter at his level and intimate about the proceedings initiated. Counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment in case of Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others (1), wherein the guidelines have been laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to save ladies from sexual harassment and prays for protection of court. She even goes to say that the petitioner even used to get vulgar letters and obscene photographs on her table. On 24. 3. 99 it was submitted by the petitioner that she can be posted in the office of PMG in administrative office of Senior Supdt. , Post Office, Jaipur City Division or Postal Store Depot, Administrative Office if some other ladies are working in the office. The department sought time to seek instruction in this regard whether she can be accommodated in any office or not? Today the letter 12. 4. 2000 has been placed on record, whereby the petitioner has been transferred and posted as Postal Asstt. GPO, Jaipur, and therefore, so far the grievance of petitioner is concerned to transfer her that has been met and no other action is required in this respect.
(3.) IN the written statement submitted on behalf of respondent it is stated that one another lady was also posted in RLO namely Smt. Shanti Sharma, Postal Asstt. since 1979. Though she was on leave frequently since 5. 5. 96 due to her domestic circumstances but she was on duty for the period as detailed in para No. 4. It is further submitted that the matter was got enquired by the Circle Complaints Committee chaired by Smt. Meera Handa, Director, Postal Services, Ajmer, Region with Dr. (Mrs.) Santosh Jain, Chief Medical Officer INcharge, P&t Dispensary No. 2 and Shri Anurag Priyadarshee, APMG (Staff & Vigl.) as members constituted as per guidelines set by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even though the report dated 5. 6. 98 (Annex. R/2) is not in favour of the petitioner, but still in para No. 14 of the report the committed has stated that petitioner was asked to join her duty in RL especially after the staff of RLO having been severely warned for extreme consequence in the matter on 27. 2. 98 or to apply for transfer. Without going into the matter any further, in my opinion, it cannot be imagined that the petitioner would unnecessary make complaints about the harassing attitude of other officials. Initially her complaints were not looked into, even though she had been asking for transfer, but she was asked to apply under Rule 38. Even if some other lady had been working in the same office, but it all depends on the circumstances when the staff may not keep reservation for certain employee. It was a fit case where the authorities, as soon as on receipt of representation of petitioner, should have transferred the petitioner to some other place from RLO. The petitioner had been repeatedly asking for her transfer from RLO and when she was not transferred she had no alternate but to proceed on leave until and unless she was adjusted in a respectable place. But it is not imaginable as to why the department had not applied its mind to such grievance of the petitioner, even though according to department it may be only imagination. In my opinion, it was a fit case where the petitioner should have been shifted immediately and should have held the enquiry against the persons, named by the petitioner, whether they had actually indulged in such activities or not? By acting in such manner the department could have helped the petitioner while keeping the petitioner in the same office. The petitioner has been charge sheeted for remaining absent, which she admits that she had to remain absent, but she had to apply for leave because of the reason that she was unable to work in the office in such atmosphere. The enquiry has not been completed as yet. If the authorities in view of the circumstances are still inclined to continue with the charge sheet, it is expected that the authorities shall take into consideration all these circumstances. If, ultimately any adverse order is passed against the petitioner she is at liberty to challenge the same. ;