K.S.JHAVERI,J. - (1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA filed by the applicant-petitioner herein.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner entered service as Postal Assistant on 16.5.83 under Ajmer City Division and sought transfer under Para 38 of P and T Manual Vol. IV (request transfer) to Jaipur on 2.2.85. She again sought request transfer under the same rule to RLO office Jaipur as Postal Assistant (PA). Under the P and T Manual, RLO office is a different cadre and working of PA at RLO requires specific Training, therefore, while transferring the applicant to this Branch, the Post Master General (CMPG) made it clear that the applicant will have to undergo the prescribed training at per own expense by taking leave as due and on successful completion of the same only, she will be entitled to join. Accordingly, she joined RLO office on 10.4.1992. At that time, RLO Jaipur was situated in C-Scheme, Jaipur. However, in January, 1996 this office was shifted to Jawahar Nagar. After shifting, the applicant complained that two employees of RLO office i.e. S/Shri Hanif Khan and Suraj working on the post of PA and Group 'D' respectively were using abusing language and making filthy remarks at her in the face of which, she was finding difficulty in working in that office. To this effect, she made complaints on 7.4.1997 and 29.7.1997. It is stated that she also made various representations to different authorities, the last representation being dated 7.4.1998. The dispute which is subject matter of appeal is that she was dismissed from service after holding an enquiry on the ground of long willful absence and dismissal order was confirmed by the appellate authority with modification of penalty by voluntary retirement which was subject matter of application before CAT and this petition.
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka and ors. v. State of Raj. and ors., AIR 1997 SC 3011 , the guidelines have not be followed and petitioner has been victimised and though she was willing to work but the circumstances are created beyond her control and she could not work at the working place, therefore, she complained to the competent authority and she has also approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 2934/98 wherein on 16.4.2001 this Court passed the following order: "On 24.3.1999 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 12.4.2001 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. In the written statement submitted on behalf of respondent it is stated that one another lady was also posted in RLP 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 and T Dispensary No. 2 and Shri Anurag Priyadarshee. APMG (Sragg and Vigl.) as members constituted as per guidelines set by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even though the report dated 5.6.98 (Ann.R-2) is in favour of the petitioner, but still in para No. 14 of the report the committee 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 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 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 form RLO. The petitioner had been repeatedly asking for her transfer from RLO and when she was transferred she had no alternate but to proceed on leave until and unless she was adjusted in a respectable place. But it is imaginable as to why the department had 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 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. In the present writ petition no other relief can be granted to petitioner as the relief sought has already been granted by transferring the petitioner vide order dated 12.4.2001. Before parting with the judgment a word of caution is administered to the Chief Post Master General, CPMG office, Postal Department CScheme, Jaipur to see that on the report of lady employee of such type of harassment he would keep strict watch and if any such activities are noticed a prompt action can always be taken to save the situation from worsening any further.;