- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 17367 OF 2024 (L-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. K. K. SOMASHEKARA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O LATE M KEMPAIAH, LABOUR AND WELFARE OFFICER, K.S.R.T.C. PUTTUR DIVISION, PUTTUR - 574 202, D. K. DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. 2. SMT. VEENA P. DESAI, CHIEF PLANNING AND STATISTICAL OFFICER AND CHAIRMAN OF THE INTERNAL COMMITTEE K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORU - 560 027. 3. SMT JAYALAKSHMI P. Y, ASSISTANT ACCOUNTANT, K.S.R.T.C. AND MEMBER, INTERNAL COMMITTEE, CENTRAL OFFICES, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 BANGALORE - 560 027. 4. SMT SUMALATHA, ASST. MECHANICAL ENGINEER AND MEMBER OF THE INTERNAL COMMITTEE, K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. 5. SMT SHYAMALA K. S, DEPUTY CHIEF LAW OFFICER AND MEMBER, INTERNAL COMMITTEE, K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. 6. SMT SUJA SUKUMARAN, NGO REPRESENTATIVE, MEMBER, INTERNAL COMMITTEE, K.S.R.T.C. CENTRAL OFFICES, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RENUKA H R., ADV FOR R1; R2 TO R6 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED INTERNAL COMMITTEE REPORT BEARING NO. KST/ICC/66/2024-25 DATED 08/06/2024 PASSED IN COMP. NO. 1/2023-24 BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-L BY THE COMMITTEE HEADED BY THE R2, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1. Respondents No.2 to 6 though served have not chosen to appear before the Court. 2. The petitioner before this Court is assailing the finding of the Internal Committee report dated 08.06.2024, marked at Annexure-L in Complaint No.1/2023-24 filed by respondent No.2. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking through the facts and records of the case, submits the following: 4. The petitioner is Class-1 Junior officer under the respondent No.1-Corporation working as Labour and Welfare Officer in Puttur division. When the petitioner was working in Mandya division five lady employees have lodged complaint against the petitioner alleging harassment in work place. The said complaint dated - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 16.03.2023, pursuant to the said complaint petitioner is transferred from Mandya division to Mudigere depot of Chikamagalur division, as Senior Depot manager. Later 5 months after the transfer, respondent No.1 vide order dated 25.08.2023, again transferred the petitioner to KSRTC Mandya division, as Labour Welfare Officer. The petitioner took charge on 01.09.2023 pursuant to transfer order date 25.08.2023. On the same day, five lady employees filed complaint against the petitioner alleging harassment at work place and again requested transfer of the petitioner. The petitioner was again transferred vide order dated 04.09.2023. 5. Later respondent No.1 constituted an internal committee to probe into the allegation of sexual harassment at work place, in terms of provisions of Sexual Harassment of Women in Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and redressal) Act, 2013 (for short 'the Act of 2013'). - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 6. The internal committee held an enquiry and submitted a report. The committee opined that except the complaint of Kum. Madhushree M. N, Junior Assistant, rest of the complaints filed by Smt Arpitha H. T, Junior Assistant, Smt Shobha, Junior Assistant, Smt. Kavitha J. M, Junior Assistant and Smt. Bhavya B. K., Assistant Statistician are time barred. Despite noticing the fact that the complaints of aforementioned persons' are time barred, the committee has given a finding that the offence under the provisions of the Act of 2013 is established. It is further observed in the said report that though the complaint of Kum. Madhushree-Junior Assistant is in time, no case is made out for an offence under the provisions of the Act of 2013. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to Section 9 of the Act of 2013 would contend that the time limit to lodge the complaint is 90 days from the date of incident and it is his further contention that if the grounds are made out for not lodging the complaint - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 within 90 days, then the same can be filed within next 90 days after providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It is his contention that unless the complaint is filed within the time prescribed under Section 9 of the Act 2013, the committee does not get jurisdiction to enquire into the allegations. Since the committee has given a finding that except the complaint of Kum. Madhushree, rest of the complaints are time barred, there was no jurisdiction for the committee to hold an enquiry into the allegations and the finding that the allegations are established, is erroneous and same has to be quashed. 8. It is also his further contention that the committee has given a finding in respect to the complaint of Kum. Madhushree-Junior Assistant, and also held that the complaint does not disclose the offence under the Act of 2013, as such, there cannot be any further action against the petitioner under the Act of 2013. Thus he would contend that the petition has to be allowed and the report has to be quashed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the committee has only recorded the findings of facts, which have been arrived at after the enquiry and the committee is yet to submit the report and make recommendations to the Disciplinary Authority. Since, no such recommendation is made by the committee yet, the petition is premature. It is also further submitted that against the recommendation made by the committee, an appeal provision is provided under the Act itself, as such, the petitioner has to wait for the recommendation and he has to take recourse to appropriate legal remedy as provided under law. 10. This Court has considered the contentions raised by the petitioner and perused the records. Section 9 of the Act of 2013 reads as under: "9. Complaint of sexual harassment- (1) Any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace to the Internal Committee if so constituted, or the Local Committee, in case it is not so constituted, within a period of three months from the date of incident and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from the date of last incident: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 Provided that where such complaint cannot be made in writing, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal Committee or the Chairperson or any Member of the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable assistance to the woman for making the complaint in writing: Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months, if it is satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the woman from filing a complaint within the said period. (2) Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this Section." 11. On a reading of the aforementioned provision, it is noticed that 90 days time limit is prescribed to lodge the complaint under Section 9 of the Act of 2013. The proviso would again make it clear that the complaint can be lodged within next 90 days after the expiry of initial 90 days from the date of incident, if there are sufficient reasons for not lodging the complaint within the first 90 days from the date of the incident, as provided. 12. The finding of the committee is not questioned by the complainants/respondents. The finding of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 committee would reveal that the complaint lodged by all the complainants except Kum. Madhushree are time barred. When the complaints are time barred, according to the finding of the committee, the committee gets no jurisdiction to probe into the matter. Thus the finding on the complaints filed by all complainants, except Kum. Madhushree, has to be expunged. Accordingly, the said findings are set aside. 13. As far as the complaint lodged by Kum. Madhushree is concerned, committee has given a finding that the complaint is in time. At the same time, the committee also records the finding that the contents of the complaint and the facts recorded by the committee do not disclose commission of any offence under the Act of 2013. 14. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the respondents, the committee has to report to the disciplinary authority on its finding in the enquiry which was conducted. Under these circumstances, this Court holds that the committee should submit its report to the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 disciplinary authority, insofar as its finding on the complaint lodged by Kum. Madhushree-Junior Assistant. Since the finding of the committee in respect of other complaints are set aside, as the complaints are time barred, the respondents shall not submit any adverse report relating to the allegations being found to be true in the said report. The respondents shall submit the finding on the complainant by Kum. Madhushree to the disciplinary authority. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER I. The writ petition is allowed in part. II. The finding that the contents of the complaint filed by the complainants Smt Arpitha H. T, Junior Assistant, Smt Shobha, Junior Assistant, Smt. Kavitha J. M, Junior Assistant and Smt. Bhavya B. K., Assistant Statistician are set aside. III. The respondents shall submit the finding on the complaint filed by Kum. Madhushree to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:7355 WP No. 17367 of 2024 the disciplinary authority as provided the Act of 2013. IV. Disciplinary authority shall proceed further in accordance with law. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11