- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14876 WP No. 28007 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 28007 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SENIOR STENOGRAPHER, AT KSRTC MADHUGIRI DEPOT, MADHUGIRI - 572 132. RESIDING AT VIJAYAVANI REPORTER BASAVANAGUDI STREET MADHUGIRI - 572 132. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (KSRTC), REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU. 2. THE SECRETARY, INTERNAL WOMEN COMPLAINTS RESOLUTORY COMMITTEE, TUMAKURU DIVISION, TUMAKURU - 572 101. 3. SMT. VANAJAKSHI WORKING AS A JUNIOR ASSISTANT, Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14876 WP No. 28007 of 2024 TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, KSRTC, TUMAKURU DIVISION, TUMAKURU - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. RENUKA H R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. MAHESH Y.L., ADVOCATE FOR R3 (V/K NOT FILED)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 08.10.2024 BEARING NO. KARASA.TUV.KARMIKA.262:2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is working as ‘a Senior Stenographer' with the first respondent, and he has called in question the Notice dated 08.10.2024 [Annexure-A] issued by the Secretary of the Internal Women Complaints Resolutory Committee, Tumakuru Sub-Division, Tumakuru, [for convenience - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14876 WP No. 28007 of 2024 is referred to as 'the Committee']. The Committee is constituted in compliance with the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [for short, 'the POSH Act']. The petitioner's grievance as against the Notice dated 08.10.2024 is examined in the light of the undisputed facts and circumstances. 2. The third respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner essentially stating that, in October 2022, he had sent offensive text messages and made video calls. This complaint is referred to the Committee. On conclusion of the proceedings, the President of the Committee has filed a report stating that there is no evidence of the petitioner having so harassed the third respondent. The other two Members of the Committee have filed their separate Reports. These Members have also opined that there is no evidence but have inferred that the petitioner has harassed the third respondent observing that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14876 WP No. 28007 of 2024 petitioner had sent another offensive text from one of his acquaintance's mobile number and that he has also tried to influence the outcome of the inquiry proceedings. It is after these proceedings that the second respondent has issued the impugned Notice. 3. This Court, on 19.03.2025, has prima facie opined that the question for consideration will be whether the second respondent, who is also the Disciplinary Authority for the petitioner, could have entered an opinion and caused the impugned Notice when there was a divergence in the views by the Members of the Committee. Further, this Court, in reiteration of the earlier interim direction, has called upon Ms H R Renuka, the learned counsel for the first and second respondents, to ensure copies of the petition are served on the third respondent, and the third respondent is accordingly served and is also represented by a learned counsel, who remains absent. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14876 WP No. 28007 of 2024 4. Sri Narasimha Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Ms. H R Renuka are heard for the disposal of the petition. This Court must find that the opinion of the two Members of the Committee that the petitioner had texted the third respondent using an acquaintance's mobile number and had tried to influence the State Government's representative in the Committee, could not have led to an inference on the allegation that the petitioner had sent offensive texts, made unsolicited video calls, and made overtures. If the petitioner has indeed tried to interfere with the proceedings of the Committee, it should be a cause for a separate proceeding but cannot justify an inference of wrongdoing as is alleged by the third respondent. 5. On the merits of the complaint, the unanimity, as seen from the separate Reports filed by the President and the other two Members, is that the third respondent has placed no evidence on record to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14876 WP No. 28007 of 2024 justify the allegation. This must lead to closure of the complaint and not another notice for re-examination. This Court must, therefore, interfere with the impugned Notice dated 08.10.2024 [Annexure-A], but this interference cannot foreclose the remedy that would be available to the third respondent, either under Section 18 of the POSH Act or otherwise under the applicable regulations. In the light of the afore: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part. [b] The second respondent's impugned Notice dated 08.10.2024 [Annexure-A] is quashed but with liberty to the third respondent as aforesaid subject to all just exceptions. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6