Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner -Dr. Shashi Indulia challenging the order dated 7.12.2010 by which her complaint against respondent No. 4 -Shri Ghanshyam Lal for sexual harassment has been rejected and the order dated 11.1.2012 by which her representation against the adverse remarks in the APARs of the year 2008 -09 entered by respondent No. 4 has been rejected. Prayer has been made to expunge the aforesaid remarks as also the red entry in the service record and to consider her case for promotion on the post of Vice Principal ignoring such remarks. Petitioner who possesses the qualification of M.A. in Public Administration and Ph.D. was appointed on the post of Lecturer (Public Administration) on 30.11.1981. Petitioner is a divorcee lady and having two children. According to the petitioner, she has been working with the respondents for last more than three decades with utmost sincerity and devotion. She belongs to Scheduled Caste category to which category, respondent No. 4 -Shri Ghanshyam Lal too belongs. He was working as the Principal at Shri Kalyan Govt. College, Sikar since 2008. At one occasion on 23.7.2009, he came to the house of the petitioner late in the night with bad intention. When the petitioner did not open the door, he had to return back. Ever since, he started threatening her with dire consequences and also that he would ruin his career. He served a notice on 10.9.2009 on the petitioner alleging that petitioner by interpolation in the attendance register marked her presence on 15.6.2009 and 29.6.2009. According to petitioner, the respondent No. 4 had put red cross on the signatures already made by the petitioner. Petitioner submitted application on 10.9.2009 for obtaining the copy of the attendance register, which was refused. In order to further harass her, respondent No. 4 served notice on her on 30.9.2009. He called for a report with regard to allegation of the petitioner from Vice Principal, whereas no such report was called about any other Lecturer. The respondent No. 4 put an adverse remark in the APAR of the petitioner of the year 2008 -09 wherein under almost all heads her services were shown to be unsatisfactory, and alleging that petitioner made changes in the attendance register and that her integrity was doubtful. The reviewing authority, however, did not accept the remark in totality by observing that there is no solid reason for adverse remarks so written. Her grading was thus upgraded. The reviewing' authority thus upgraded the unsatisfactory grading of the petitioner to average..
(2.) IT is contended that the petitioner made persistent request to the respondent authorities to take action against respondent No. 4 as he was continuously harassing her. When no action was taken, she approached this Court by filing the writ petition No. 1721/2010, which was disposed of by order dated 7.4.2010 requiring the Director/Commissioner, College Education, Government of Rajasthan, Shiksha Sankul, Jaipur to get the complaint of the petitioner examined in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, : AIR 1997 SC 3011 and D.S. Grewal v. V.V. Josh, : (2009) 2 SCC 210 and pass appropriate order within a period of three months from the date of submission of representation by petitioner. On direction of the Commissioner, a Committee was constituted for that purpose, which called the petitioner for personal hearing on 19.5.2010, who appeared there but thereafter no information was received by the petitioner. Petitioner then filed an application under Right to Information Act on 6.8.2010 demanding copy of the enquiry report, in response to which she received communication dated 31.8.2010 whereby it was informed that the enquiry report has been sent to the Principal Secretary, Higher Education. She thereupon made request to Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Government of Rajasthan, who in turn required the petitioner to obtain copy of enquiry report from the Commissioner, College Education. Petitioner had to then file a contempt petition, but the act of harassment of the petitioner by respondent No. 4 continued unabated. In fact, he vide communication dated 17.7.2010 proposed a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules alleging that on two dates, she put her signatures on cross marks while she was absent on those days. He also made adverse entries in the service book thereupon Petitioner submitted representation on 13.8.2010 to the Commissioner, College Education for deletion of such entries and for dropping the proposed disciplinary proceedings. The Commissioner, College Education by order dated 5.1.2011 did not find the case worthy enough to proceed against and dropped the disciplinary proceedings, but did not order for deletion of adverse remarks/adverse entries. Petitioner further submitted that even when the contempt petition is pending before this Court, she received a communication dated 14.3.2011 with which a copy of the enquiry report was supplied to her. Perusal of the enquiry report indicates that the allegation with regard to sexual harassment of the petitioner by the respondent No. 4 was not considered by the said Committee. On the basis of other facts, the Committee finally opined that it was a case of female harassment and proper action must be taken. On that basis, however, the Government by order dated 7.12.2010 held that the allegation of sexual harassment was not found proved by the Committee. Petitioner has submitted that this Committee was headed by the Smt. Pratibha Saxena, Joint Director, College Education with Ms. Dipali Bhargava, Lecturer, Commissionerate and Dr. Subhash Yadav, Lecturer, Commissionerate as Members, whereas this Committee has completely overlooked the report of the earlier Committee headed by Dr. Anita Kothari with four members including those who were member in the subsequent Committee. The earlier Committee in their report dated 21.6.2010 noted that it was a clear case of harassment of woman and the proper action must be taken and it was on that basis that a warning was given to respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 5.1.2011.
(3.) THE respondents have contested the writ petition by filing reply and counter affidavit wherein the statement of the petitioner that she is member of SC and divorcee and have two children is not disputed. It is contended that adverse remarks entry was made in the service book of the petitioner by respondent No. 4 on 15.7.2010 because she marked her attendance on the cross put by the Principal in. the attendance register for those two dates. In this connection when notice was given to the petitioner on 30.9.2009, he submitted an explanation on 5.10.2009. The Principal called for the report from the Dr. C.L. Sharma, the then Vice Principal about the working of the petitioner. It is admitted that the Principal has recommended the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules. It is also admitted that the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on her demand. However, it is submitted that the letter of warning served upon the respondent by the petitioner on 5.1.2011 not being connected with the allegation of sexual harassment, was eventually withdrawn by the Commissioner, College Education vide order dated 2.2.2011. Simultaneously, it is also submitted that the proposed disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Rule 16 was also dropped. The Government on receipt of the report did not find the allegation of sexual harassment against the respondent No. 4 proved and in this connection, the appropriate order was passed on 7.12.2010 addressed to the Commissioner, College Education. The Government by keeping two adverse entries of the petitioner with regard to her doubtful integrity, has rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 11.1.2012.;