- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 61800 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1890, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560012 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR SRI. RAJARAJAN, S/O VARADARAJAN, AGE 53 YEARS 2. PROF. ANURAG KUMAR SON OF SRI AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, DIRECTOR, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560012 3. DR. H.N. CHANAKYA SON OF SRI. C.P. NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CHIEF RESEARCH SCIENTIST, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560012 4. PROF. SANDHYA S. VISHVESHWARIAH WIFE OF LATE SRI SRIKANT VISHVESHWARIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CHAIRPERSON-MRDG, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560012 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 5. DR. DASAPPA SON OF SRI. D. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PROFESSOR-CST, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560012 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRADEEP S SAWKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. D. SANNA DURGAPPA SON OF SRI HANUMANTHAPPA D, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARASIKERE POST, MARAPANAHALLI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-583125 2. KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, NO.14/3, II FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.C.MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; NOTICE IS SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.1 AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CASE NO.875/2016 ANNEXURE-EE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the proceedings in Case No.zËdð£Àå/875/2016 before the respondent No.2 and have also sought for a declaration that respondent No.1 has no right to prosecute the complaint dated 31.08.2016 or file any fresh complaint against the petitioners or others before the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner No.1 – Indian Institute of Science (henceforth referred to as ‘the Institute’) is an internationally acclaimed Institute in conducting research in Science and Technology and is though autonomous in functioning but is funded by the Government of India through its various Ministries and Departments. The petitioner No.2 is the Director of the petitioner No.1 while petitioner No.3 is a faculty member, petitioner No.4 is a Professor heading a Department in the Institute while petitioner No.5 is a professor in one of the Centres of the Institute. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 3. The respondent No.1 joined the Institute on 10.07.2008 as a Lecturer in the Centre for Sustainable Technologies on contract for a period of five years. His continuation was subject to assessment of his performance by the Competent Authority. He was subsequently promoted as Assistant Professor with effect from 10.07.2011 and his contractual employment was converted to a tenure appointment as per a letter dated 14.02.2013. He was placed in the pay scale of Pay Band-4 with basic of Rs.37,400/- and pay grade of Rs.9,000/-. The petitioners contend that career advancement of the respondent No.1 in the Institute through promotion, pay rise and tenure over a period of six years was possible only on the basis of support provided at each stage from every faculty of the Department, its Chairman, Divisional Chairman and the highest authority of the Institute. It is claimed that the respondent No.1 was also strongly supported to carry on research activities and was provided the seed grant of Rs.10,00,000/- and a research grant of Rs.5,00,000/-. He was granted all opportunities for furthering his career prospects. He was also permitted to travel abroad after he obtained leave of absence. They contend that the teaching and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 non-teaching staff of the Institute are governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for short, ‘the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965’) as amended from time to time. They contend that the Institute has fallen in line to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vishaka and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others [AIR 1997 SC 3011] regarding sexual harassment at work place by constituting an Internal Complaints Committee i.e. Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee (SHCC) of which the petitioner No.4 was appointed as a Chairperson. 4. The petitioners contend that a complaint was received on 25.09.2014 from a Research Scholar at the Centre for Sustainable Technologies alleging sexual harassment by the respondent No.1. The Internal Complaints Committee/SHCC decided to enquire into the matter and as an interim measure, directed the petitioner No.2 to remove the respondent No.1 as a PhD Thesis Supervisor of the complainant vide letter dated 30.09.2014. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent No.1 who issued a reply dated 15.10.2014 denying the allegations. As a counterblast, the respondent No.1 gave a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 representation dated 10.10.2014 to the Director of the Institute alleging atrocities by the senior faculty members of the Institute and the complainant. The Director of the Institute constituted a separate Committee consisting of five members to enquire into the allegations made by the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 then resorted to taking support of the SC/ST Faculty and Officers Association, which also addressed a letter dated 15.10.2014 to the Director of the Institute, for probing into his complaint. The Committee constituted to enquire into the complaint of the respondent No.1, submitted its report dated 18.12.2014 holding that the allegations made by the respondent No.1 were baseless and the Department head of the respondent No.1 was asked to counsel him. 5. The Internal Complaints Committee proceeded with the enquiry and after recording the evidence of the concerned witnesses, submitted a report that the allegations made by the Research Scholar against the respondent No.2 were established. The Internal Complaints Committee in its report dated 12.11.2014 therefore recommended imposition of punishment of dismissal of respondent No.1 from service. A - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 copy of the findings of the Committee and the recommendations made were furnished to him who submitted a reply to the Director of the Institute dated 23.03.2015 contending that the enquiry was not held as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vishaka’s case (supra). In the meanwhile, the petitioners contend that the respondent No.1 indulged in serious acts of misconduct such as sending emails to faculty and staff of the Institute enclosing his reply to the show cause notice and revealing the name of the complainant as well as the details of the enquiry. The Internal Complaints Committee again met and took exception to the way the respondent No.1 conducted himself and hence, submitted a further report dated 07.04.2015 imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/- and directed respondent No.1 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant. The issue was placed before the Disciplinary Authority i.e. Council of the Institute at its meeting held on 28.04.2015. The Council deliberated on the issue and unanimously decided to remove the respondent No.1 from service. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.1 had vacated the official quarters allotted to him without leaving the particulars of his new residence. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 6. The respondent No.1 allegedly then attempted to compel the petitioner No.2 to withdraw the order of punishment for which he approached two Associations, namely, IISc Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, OBC and Minorities Employees Welfare Association (R) and SC/ST Faculty and Officers’ Association, who submitted the representations dated 11.05.2015 threatening to go on dharna. A Professor who had founded the SC/ST Faculty and Officers’ Association sat on a one day hunger strike. Seeing the situation getting volatile, the Security Officer of the Institute informed the Police. The Association was later persuaded to withdraw the hunger strike. 7. In the meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed an appeal dated 25.05.2015 challenging the order of punishment of dismissal from service, which was placed before the Council of the Institute. The Council treated it as a review petition and rejected it in terms of an order dated 20.06.2015. The respondent No.1 then challenged the order of punishment passed by the Registrar dated 28.04.2015 in W.P. No.19594/2015 before this Court. Though an interim order of stay was sought for, this Court refused to grant any interim - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 order. The petitioners contend that the respondent No.1 was making false and frivolous allegations against the complainant, the senior faculty members, witnesses etc. alleging harassment and atrocities on the basis of his caste. The Director of the petitioner No.1 constituted a separate Committee under the Chairmanship of Professor Mr. M.R.N. Murthy who submitted a report dated 18.12.2014 holding that the allegations of respondent No.1 were baseless and not substantiated. The respondent No.1 then lodged complaints before the respondent No.2 and the Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Bengaluru alleging that he was harassed on the basis of his caste and sought action against those who were responsible for the disciplinary action against him. By a letter dated 04.05.2015 submitted on 12.05.2015, the respondent No.1 lodged a complaint with the Additional Director General of Police (ADGP), Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (CRE) about the order of his removal from service passed by the Council. In the said complaint, he again sought for action against 25 persons who were responsible for the order of his removal from service. Based on this complaint, the Deputy Superintendent of Police of CRE Cell issued notice dated - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 06.08.2015 to the petitioner No.2 who appeared at the enquiry. The respondent No.1 also lodged a complaint to the respondent No.2 on 23.06.2015 pursuant to which respondent No.2 registered a case and issued notice to petitioner No.2 dated 07.07.2015 calling upon him to file his reply and produce documents. The said complaint dated 23.06.2015 also pertained to the disciplinary action taken by the Institute against the respondent No.1 and was directed against many persons including the witnesses who deposed at the enquiry. The Institute submitted its reply dated 19.08.2015 stating that the issue is sub judice before this Court in W.P No.19594/2015 and therefore, the proceedings before the respondent No.2 are not maintainable. Nonetheless, the respondent No.2 issued summons to the respondents therein for appearance at the enquiry. Therefore, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 filed W.P Nos.41118- 41119/2015 and W.P No.41120/2015. This Court in terms of an order dated 23.09.2015, granted interim order as prayed for i.e including stay of the proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 07.07.2015 in Case No.257/2015 before the respondent No.2 herein. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 8. In the meanwhile, W.P No.19594/2015 filed by the respondent No.1 was heard by a coordinate Bench of this Court for sometime. The respondent No.1 sought permission of the Court to approach the Institute for an amicable settlement. This Court permitted the respondent No.1 to explore a settlement. Consequent thereto, the respondent No.1 submitted a proposal requesting the Institute to convert the order of his removal from service to that of resignation with effect from 28.04.2015. The respondent No.1 agreed to withdraw all proceedings / complaints made against the petitioners and others and agreed that he would not file any further complaint in future. The proposal was placed before the Council of the Institute. The Council of the Institute agreed to consider the proposal favourably. The respondent No.1 addressed letters to the respondent No.2, Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Director General of Police, CRE Cell as well as the Director, National Commission for Scheduled Castes withdrawing the complaints against the Institute unconditionally. All the authorities accepted the same and closed the proceedings. Thereafter, a joint memo dated 06.04.2016 was filed by the petitioner No.1 herein and - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 respondent No.1 herein in W.P No.19594/2015. The said joint memo was taken on record and the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous in terms of the order passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.04.2016. A memo dated 07.04.2016 was filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein, in W.P Nos.41118-41119/2015 and W.P No.41120/2015 for disposal of the writ petitions in view of the undertaking given by the respondent No.1 herein not to initiate or file any fresh complaint against the petitioners or others. A coordinate Bench of this Court in view of the memo dated 05.04.2016 filed by the respondent No.1 herein to the effect that he has withdrawn the complaint which was in challenge in the said writ petitions and in view of the memo dated 07.04.2016 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioners enclosing therewith a joint memo, disposed off the said writ petitions in terms of the Order dated 07.04.2016. In deference to the terms contained in the said joint memo, the Institute issued an order treating the cessation of service of respondent No.1 as resignation with effect from 28.04.2015 and settled all terminal benefits payable to the respondent No.1, who accepted it without any demur. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 9. Later, the Institute received a notice dated 30.06.2016 issued on behalf of the respondent No.1 alleging that the Institute had failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the joint memo dated 06.04.2016 and that rumours were being spread that the respondent No.1 would be made ineligible for appointment elsewhere. The Institute issued a reply dated 27.07.2016 denying the allegations made in the said notice. Later, respondent No.1 herein filed an application - I.A No.1 of 2016 dated 29.08.2016 in W.P No.19594/2015 to recall the order dated 06.04.2016 passed in the said petition on the basis of the joint memo and to restore the writ petition for disposal on merits. He filed another application - I.A No.2/2016 for condonation of delay of 113 days in filing the application - I.A No.1/2016. Both the applications were considered by a coordinate Bench of this Court which in terms of an order dated 21.09.2016, allowed I.A. No.2/2016 and rejected I.A. No.1/2016. 10. Despite the above, the respondent No.1 continued to harass the petitioners by making false and frivolous complaints to the Prime Minister of India, Minister for Human - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 Resource Development, Government of India, Chief Minister and Home Minister, Government for Karnataka. The Institute was forced to file suitable replies informing the above Authorities about the proceedings and the consequent orders passed. 11. The petitioners contend that when the attempts of the respondent No.1 failed to yield any results, he filed another complaint dated 31.08.2016 before the respondent No.2 who registered Case No.875/2016 and issued summons to the petitioner Nos.3 to 6 directing them to appear before the said authority on 03.11.2016. The petitioner Nos.3 and 4 appeared through counsel before the respondent No.2 on 03.11.2016 and filed a preliminary reply and addressed arguments seeking to close the proceedings as not maintainable. However, the respondent No.2 rejected the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel and held that the proceedings would be closed only if the Institute revokes the order dated 28.04.2015 imposing major penalty of removal from service on the respondent No.1 and reinstated him into service. The respondent No.2 thus proceeded to issue notice to the other petitioners directing them to appear in person on the next date - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 of hearing. The petitioners, therefore, being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 are before this Court in this writ petition. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that once the respondent No.1 had filed a joint memo on 06.04.2016 in W.P No.19594/2015, based upon which the writ petition was disposed off, the respondent No.1 could not have again approached the respondent No.2 with similar allegations. He contends that this is a clear abuse of the process of law and hence, the impugned proceedings before the respondent No.2 are liable to be quashed. He further contends that the respondent No.1 has acted upon the joint memo dated 06.04.2016 filed in W.P No.19594/2015 and his removal from service is treated by the Institute as resignation with effect from 28.04.2015 and all his service benefits are paid. He contends that the respondent No.1 attempted to renege from the joint memo by filing an application - I.A. No.1/2016 to recall the order dated 06.04.2016 dismissing W.P No.19594/2015 as having become infructuous which too was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 21.09.2016. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.1 who had - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 agreed that he would not henceforth lodge any complaint before any Authority relating to his service, cannot be allowed to misuse the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act, 1989’) to harass the petitioners. 13. The learned counsel for petitioners further submitted that the respondent No.1 had also lodged a private complaint in PCR No.55/2016 which was referred for investigation and a case in Crime No.217/2016 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii)(x), 3(1)(ix)(v), 3(1)(viii), 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(i)(ii) of the Act, 1989. He contends that the proceedings in the said criminal case were challenged in W.P No.63878/2016. This Court allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in PCR No.55/2016 and the consequent F.I.R registered by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadashivanagar Police Station, Bangalore, in Crime No.217/2016 for the aforesaid offences vide order dated 30.10.2023. He contends that the respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No.19594/2015 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 based on the joint memo filed by the respondent No.1 herein and the petitioner No.1 herein, before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1024/2018, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 16.04.2018. The respondent No.1 thereafter filed a Review Petition in R.P No.171/2018 which was also rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 16.08.2019. He further submits that the respondent No.1 had also filed a private complaint against some of the officials of the Institute which was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He contends that respondent No.1 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging cruelty against six accused mentioned therein before the jurisdictional Police, who registered Crime No.173/2017 against the accused therein for the offences punishable under 3(1)(ii)(x), 3(1)(ix)(v), 3(1)(viii), 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(i)(ii) of the Act, 1989 which was questioned in W.P No.10835/2017. The said writ petition was allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 07.06.2022. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.1 cannot now turn back the clock and launch - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 fresh proceedings against the petitioners before the respondent No.2. 14. Though the respondent No.1 was served with notice of this writ petition, he has not entered appearance. 15. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that since the respondent No.1 had made allegations against the petitioners, the respondent No.2 had called upon the petitioners to appear before it. He submits that the petitioners have approached this Court hurriedly without waiting for the respondent No.2 to consider the complaint filed by the respondent No.1. He, therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed and petitioners be directed to appear before the respondent No.2 and submit their reply. 16. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 17. The respondent No.1 had challenged the order dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the Institute dismissing him from service in W.P No.19594/2015. In the said writ petition, the respondent No.1 and the Institute - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 entered into a settlement, the terms of which are extracted below: “TERMS OF SETTLEMENT "4. That the Institute, in recognition of the personal hardship being faced by the Petitioner and taking into account the special facts and circumstances of the case, without prejudice to the report of SHCC and without making it a precedent, permits the order of cessation from service of the Petitioner to be modified as resignation instead of removal from service w.e.f 28.04.2015 subject to the condition that the Petitioner withdraws all the proceedings, complaints, accusations lodged with different Authorities like Karnataka State Commission for SC & ST, Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, National Commission for SC & ST, etc., against Senior Faculty/Professors, Director, Complainant, witnesses in the enquiry or any other person inside and outside the Institute. 5. 5. That the Petitioner confirms having addressed letters to Karnataka State Commission for SC&ST, Additional Director General of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell and National Commission for SC&ST seeking withdrawal of the complaints and that the authorities have endorsed on these letters stating that the case has been closed. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 Copies of these letters containing the said endorsements are annexed to this Joint Memo as Annexures 1, 2, 3 and 14. Copies of these letters containing the original endorsements of the authorities have been handed over to Respondent No.1 this day. Further, the Petitioner undertakes not to initiate any fresh complaint or proceedings on the same/similar issues pertaining to Institute, against the Institute or any individuals inside or outside the Institute. 6. That the letter of the Petitioner dated 10.02.2016 requesting the Institute to treat it as resignation, effective, 28.04.2015 is accepted by the Institute based on the "in-principle" approval of the Council dated 12.03.2016. Accordingly, taking into account the special facts and circumstances of the case, and without making it a precedent, the Institute has permitted the Petitioner to resign from service and consequently, the order of cessation from service of the Petitioner is modified as resignation instead of removal from service by way of deemed acceptance of resignation w.e.f 28.04.2015. A separate order of even date accepting the resignation w.e.f 28.04.2015 shall be issued by the Institute to the Petitioner. 7. It is further agreed between the parties that the Petitioner shall not be entitled to seek fresh employment in the Institute and the Institute, hereafterwards, shall refer to his exit from the Institute - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 as on account of acceptance of resignation w.e.f 28.04.2015. 8. That the Institute shall file a memo in WP No.41118-41120 of 2015 bringing to the notice of this Hon’ble Court about the withdrawal of the complaints so that the Writ Petitions can be disposed of accordingly. 9. That upon disposal of this case and W.P 41118-41120 of 2015 the Institute shall settle all the terminal benefits as per rules on the basis that the Petitioner has resigned from service. 10. That both parties agree to not to distort or misrepresent the contents of this Joint Memo in any way, shape or form.” W.P. No.19594/2015 was dismissed as having become infructuous by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 06.04.2016 recording the settlement which contained the above terms. 18. It is seen that the respondent No.1 filed an application – I.A. No.1/2016 to recall the order dated 06.04.2016 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P No.19594/2015 accepting the settlement which was rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of an order dated - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 21.09.2016. The respondent No.1 then challenged the order dated 06.04.2016 passed in W.P No.19594/2015 in W.A. No.1024/2018 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court in terms of the judgment dated 16.04.2018. The respondent No.1 unsuccessfully attempted for a review of the judgment passed in W.A. No.1024/2018 by preferring R.P. No.171/2018 which was rejected by a Division Bench of this Court in terms of an order dated 16.08.2019. It is stated by the petitioners that based on the joint memo dated 06.04.2016, the Institute had settled all the terminal benefits of the respondent No.1, who accepted it without any protest. Therefore, the respondent No.1 after having taken the benefit of the joint memo and after having agreed that he would henceforth not file similar complaints under the Act, 1989 cannot again approach the respondent No.2 with a complaint containing the very same allegations against the petitioners. If the respondent No.1 is not satisfied with the terms of the joint memo dated 06.04.2016 filed in W.P No.19594/2015, he has to work out his remedy in accordance with law by either moving this Court or by approaching the Institute. He certainly cannot strong arm the petitioners by again approaching the - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34499 WP No. 61800 of 2016 respondent No.2. This indeed is an abuse of the process of law and has to be dealt with accordingly. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The proceedings initiated by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners based on the complaint of the respondent No.1 in Case No.zËdð£Àå /875/2016 are quashed. The respondent No.1 shall henceforth not file any complaint against the petitioners in respect of any matter relating to his service in the Institute before the respondent No.2, Civil Rights Enforcement Cell and National Commission for Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34