APHC010350772023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3529] WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR WRIT PETITION NO: 18136/2023 Between: 1. NELLI RAMJI PRASAD, S/O LAKSHMIPATHI, AGE. 45 YEARS, .OCC. EMPLOYEE (DISMISSED FROM SERVICE), RESIDENT OF OPP. R.T.O. OFFICE, K.S.F. ROAD, AMALAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT- 5332601 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), AMARAVATHI, NELAPADU, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CUM DISTRICT JUDGE, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM. 3. THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE, REP. BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, DISTRICT COURT COMPLEX, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue order, writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Certiorari, call for the records and quash the order of the 2nd Respondent in dismissing the Petitioner from service vide Final Order in D.E. File No.15/2019 dated 22.06.2021 and the consequential order 2 of the 1st Respondent in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner vide Order in D(D)A.No.03/2023 C.4(Con.) dated 18.04.2023 respectively being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from being violative of Principles of Natural Justice and for a consequential direction to the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRICHARAN TELAPROLU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A JAYANTHI Date of Reserved : 08.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 Date of Upload : 31.12.2025 3 The Court made the following Order: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) The petitioner herein had been appointed as an attender, on 06.07.1995, in the Junior Civil Judge, Mummadivaram, on compassionate basis. He had been promoted as Field Assistant and was working in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, at the time of his dismissal from service. A complainant, working as a lady attender on outsourcing basis, in the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Kothapeta, had filed a complaint against the petitioner, stating that, on 01.10.2017, the petitioner had outraged the modesty of the complainant, while she was on duty, in the Court premises at Kothapeta. The specific complaint was that the petitioner had caught hold of the hand of the complainant and had forcibly pulled the saree of the complainant while catching hold of her hair and breast and thereby outraged the modesty of the complainant. On the basis of this complaint, which had been filed on 04.10.2017, the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, had forwarded the complaint to the Station House Officer, Kothapeta Police Station as well as the Chairman-cum-Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. The complaint received by the Station House Officer, Kothapet, was registered as Crime No.216 of 2017 and is now pending before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothapeta, as C.C.No.493 of 2017. 2. The Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, after receiving the complaint as well as the communication of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, had forwarded the same to the Member, Committee of Gender Sensitization and Sexual Harassment against Women Staff-cum-I Additional 4 District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, for further action. The I Additional District Judge directed the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate to record the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, if any, on the incident. The III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, recorded the statement of the complainant and had forward the same to the I Additional District Judge, under cover of letter, dated 09.07.2019. The I Additional District Judge then filed a report before the Principal District Judge on 06.08.2019. on the basis of this report, the Principal District Judge by an Order, dated 14.08.2019, proposed an enquiry against the petitioner in terms of Rule-20 of the APCS (C.C.A) Rules 1991 [for short “the Rules, 1991”]. In these proceedings, six charges were set out against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner filed his written statement of defense on 16.10.2019 denying all the said allegations. The case of the petitioner was that the complainant had earlier worked as an attender in Mandal Legal Service Authority at Amalapuram, when he was also working in Amalapuram. He states that she had obtained a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner as she was in deep financial crisis and was pressurized by her creditors. The petitioner had, inturn, obtained a personal loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from HDFC bank, Amalapuram and had given the amount to her. Later, the complainant came to be transferred from Amalapuram to Rampachodavaram and subsequently to Kothapeta. As the complainant was not returning the money, the petitioner had obtained a promissory note from her in February-2017 and had gone to Kothapet on 01.10.2017 to collect part payment of the loan which 5 he had extended. However, she did not make any payment on 01.10.2017 due to which the petitioner had informed her that he would be filing a civil suit against her for recovery. The petitioner contends that it is thereafter that she filed a false complaint against him and that he had never misbehaved with her as he treated her as a sister. The petitioner contends that the complaint had been filed primarily to evade repayment of Rs.2,00,000/- loan taken by her. 4. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer submitted a report, dated 27.08.2020, stating that the charges against the petitioner have been proved. Thereafter, the Principal District Judge, issued memorandum, dated 01.09.2020, directing the petitioner to submit his final written statement. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 21.12.2020. The Principal District Judge after considering the said explanation passed an order, dated 22.06.2021, dismissing the petitioner from service under Rule-9(x) of the Rules, 1991. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which also came to be dismissed, on 18.04.2023. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal by the Principal District Judge and the subsequent order of dismissal of the appeal, dated 18.04.2023, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 5. Sri Sricharan Teleprolu, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that none of the authorities had applied their mind to the facts of the present case. He would submit that the various discrepancies in the evidence of the complainant and the variations in the statements given by her, from time to time are sufficient to hold that the version of the complainant is not credible. 6 He would also contend that the procedure adopted by the Principal District Judge, Rajahmundry is also not in accord with the procedure that needs to be followed under the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace [Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal] Act, 2013 [for short “the Act 14 of 2013”]. 6. Smt. A. Jayanthi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-High Court would contend that there are no variations or discrepancies in the statements of the complainant which can lead to any doubts regarding the credibility of the complainant. She would further contend that the petitioner had been given all the required opportunities of making good his case. She would also contend that the petitioner had not proved his version of the events inasmuch as neither the pro-note that is said to have been executed by the complainant nor the alleged loan taken by the petitioner from a private bank had been proved before the enquiry officer. She would contend that the inability of the petitioner to produce the pro-note is sufficient to hold that there was no such pro-note and the entire version of the petitioner is incorrect. She would submit that in such circumstances, no interference is called for, by this Court. 7. A Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment, dated 22.08.2025, in W.P.No.2298 of 2023, in the case of Syed Makhdul Ahmed Vs. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, had an occasion to consider the provisions of the Act 14 of 2013. 7 8. A perusal of the Judgment would show that there are various defects in the procedure adopted in the present case. Section-10 of the Act 14 of 2013 requires conciliation to be attempted before any enquiry can be conducted. No such conciliation proceedings had been initiated. Every organization is required to have an internal complaints committee which has to conduct the enquiry. In the present case, the enquiry was not conducted by the internal complaints committee instead the enquiry was handed over to an enquiry officer. The petitioner was entitled to a copy of the report of the internal complaints committee and to an appeal under Section-18 of the Act 14 of 2013 against the report. No such report appears to have been served on the petitioner and consequently his rights under Section-13 of the Act 14 of 2013 have been denied. Under the scheme of Act 14 of 2013, the Principal District Judge would have to act on the report of the internal complaints committee. Instead of taking action on that basis, the Principal District Judge initialed a further enquiry and the same is impressible in terms of the provisions of the Act 14 of 2013. This Court, without having to multiply the various omissions and commissions, in the conduct of the enquiry can prima facie hold that the entire enquiry is vitiated for non-compliance of the requirements of the Act 14 of 2013. 9. Though, this Writ Petition can be disposed of on this short basis, it would also be appropriate to consider the merits of the Writ Petition. The primary contention of the petitioner is that there is no evidence from any eye witnesses about the actual incident. The only evidence produced by the 8 complainant is her own deposition. This deposition is not credible in view of the substantial discrepancies between the statements made by the complainant at various points of time. 10. On 01.10.2017, the complainant had filed a complaint before the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta. In this complaint, she stated that she was on guard duty from 8.00 am on 01.10.2017 in the Court complex at Kothapeta. The petitioner had approached her at 03.25 pm. The petitioner, seeing that she was alone caught hold of her hand, saying he needed to talk with her. She tried to free her hand and go out of the Court building. However, the petitioner caught hold of her saree and pulled her hair and troubled her. As the complainant was struggling to free herself, the petitioner put his hand on her mouth and caught hold of her breast. The petitioner had also threatened the complainant if she would not cooperate with him and would see her end if she informed anybody of all this. The petitioner then, out of fear, ran out of the building. When she came out she saw Sri V. Satyanarayana who was also there as the guard for the PDM Court as well as Sri Paul. G who was an advocate and his clerk Sri K. Srinivas, who had come to the Court for verifying some Court records. She informed them about the incident and they had scolded the petitioner and sent him away. However, the petitioner while leaving again threatened her. 11. The complainant again gave a statement, before the III Additional District Magistrate of First Class, on 20.11.2017. In this statement, she stated that Sri V. Satyanarayana who was there on guard duty along with her spoke 9 to her around 3.00 pm and left. Thereafter, the petitioner came to the Court premises at 3.25 pm and held her left hand and pressed her breast and tried to rape her. The complainant raised an outcry and the petitioner and went out of the Court premises. The complainant also came outside and saw that there was another person waiting on a two wheeler. The petitioner sat on the two wheeler and went away from the Court. After this, the complainant came into the Court premises. However, the petitioner who had gone away came back again. At that stage, the complainant called the superintendent of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kothapeta and told him about the harassment meted out by the petitioner. The superintendent told the complainant to inform the same to Sri V. Satyanarayana, who was there as the guard for the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court. The complainant then informed the superintendent that the guard of the Junior Civil Judge Court was not present, in reply the superintendent asked her to search for any other guard available there. While this conversation was going on, the petitioner again threatened the complainant that if she made a phone call, to anyone, he would spread canards about her. At that stage, advocate Sri Paul. G and his clerk Sri K. Srinivas came to check their adjournments when the complainant informed them about the incident. Thereupon, they admonished the petitioner and asked him why he had come to the Court. The petitioner had then stated that she was indebted to him for Rs.3,00,000/- and he had come there to ask for the money etc. The complainant also stated that the conversation between her, the petitioner and the advocate was recorded by her on her cell phone. 10 At that stage, she was able to place a phone call to the guard of the Principal Senior Civil Judge to whom she narrated the entire incident after which, the guard made a phone call to the petitioner who replied in a reckless manner. The complainant also states that she went to the police station, Kothapeta and made a report and she was accompanied by Sri Paul G, advocate. The policeman in the police station is said to have made a phone call to the petitioner, and asked him to come to the police station on the next day at 08.00 am. On the next day, when she about to go to the police station, the complainant received a phone call from Sri Paul G, advocate who asked her to come to the Court complex where the advocate and the henchmen of the petitioner were present. The advocate informed her that he had been threatened by the petitioner and 20 other persons and asked the complainant as to whether she had given the complaint herself or at the insistence of advocate. She stated that she had given the complaint by herself. The complainant also stated that the petitioner and his relatives were in the police station and she went there along with her husband and other relatives. She made further statements about being harassed by the petitioner and other persons on his behalf. 12. The complainant gave a third statement, during the enquiry, on 21.12.2019. In this statement, she states that the petitioner had come to the Court premises at 3.20 pm and caught hold of her saree and touched and pressed her breast while behaving indecently towards her. Eventually, she came out into the varanda to inform Sri V. Satyanaryana. At that stage, she 11 saw Sri Paul G, advocate and his clerk to whom she informed about the incident. The advocate and his clerk are said to have admonished the petitioner and the said conversation was recorded by the complainant and stored in a compact disk. Later, Sri V. Satyanaryana is said to have telephoned the petitioner and questioned him about his conduct etc. 13. Five witnesses were examined during the enquiry. The complainant was E.W.1, the III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, who had recorded the statement of the complainant is E.W.2, Sri V. Satyanarayana, the person who is said to have been present in the Court at the time of the incident is E.W.3, a Senior Assistant namely Sri Raghavacharulu who stated that he came to know of humiliation of the complainant is E.W.4 and the Superintendent of Kothapet Senior Civil Judge Court, at the time of the incident, is E.W.5. Sri V. Satyanarayana who was E.W.3 stated that on day of the incident, the complainant informed him at 11.30 am that the petitioner had come to sub-court and had harassed her. However, he did not find anyone present when he came to the court hall. He went up to the gate of Court complex but nobody was present. E.W.5 states that he had been informed about the incident on the next working day, that the complainant had been humiliated by the petitioner and thereafter, E.W.5 is said to have taken to the complainant to the presiding officer who initiated proceedings. 14. The complainant in her complaint states that the incident took place on 3.20 pm on 01.10.2017. she maintains this time frame in all 12 subsequent statements. However, this time frame was contradicted by E.W.3 who says she informed him about the incident at 11.30 am itself. 15. The complainant states in her 1st complaint that Sri V. Satyanarayana who was available in the Court complex, upon being told of the incident had confronted the petitioner about the said incident. In her 2nd statement, on 20.11.2017 she states that Sri V. Satyanarayana had gone away when the petitioner had misbehaved with her at 3.25 pm and that she was able to contact Sri V. Satyanarayana only over the phone and subsequently, Sri V. Satyanarayana had admonished the petitioner over a phone call. In the third statement, recorded on 21.11.2019 by the enquiry officer, she again states that she came out of the building into the varanda to inform Sri V. Satyanarayana, but only Sri Paul. G and his clerk were available. These discrepancies relating to the presence of Sri V. Satyanarayana raise any amount of doubt about the credibility of the complaint. 16. The complainant in her initial complaint states that the petitioner had come into the complex and had harassed her in the Court building and thereafter, left. In her second statement recorded on 20.11.2017, she says that the petitioner harassed her and left the complex while she followed him out of the complex and had found that another person was waiting for the petitioner on a two wheeler and that the petitioner had left on the two wheeler as a pillion rider. But, the petitioner again came back after sometime. In the statement recorded on 21.12.2019 there is no mention of the two wheeler or any other person waiting for the petitioner outside the Court complex. The 13 variations in the statements, are too significant, to the treated as minor aberrations which can be ignored. 17. The complainant in her initial complaint does not mention anything about any information being given to the superintendent of the Court, on 01.10.2017. In the statement recorded on 20.11.2017, she states that she called the superintendent immediately after the incident and the superintendent had given certain instructions about informing the other guards available in the Court premises. In the statement recorded on 21.12.2019, she states that she telephoned the superintendent and informed him about the behavior of the petitioner on 01.10.2017 itself. However, the superintendent who was examined as E.W.5 states that the complainant had informed him about the incident on the next day and not on the same day as the incident. The discrepancies between the statements made by the petitioner in this regard and the evidence of E.W.5 clearly contradicts each other about what actually happened on 01.10.2017. 18. In the complaint as well as the statements, the complainant stated that Sri Paul .G, advocate and his clerk Sri K. Srinivas were in the Court when she came out of the Court building and that she had informed them about the incident. In the statement in the complaint, made on 01.10.2017, there is no mention of any complaint being made by her in the police station, on 01.10.2017. In the statement made on 20.11.2017, she states that she went to the police station accompanied by advocate Sri Paul. G and that she gave a report on that day itself after which she was asked to 14 come to the police station on the next day of 08.00 am. In the statement made on 21.12.2109, she states that she went to the Kothpeta police station and lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 01.10.2017 itself. However, there is no mention of Sri Paul .G, advocate accompanying her to the police station. Advocate Paul. G was not examined as a witness. This is yet another discrepancy which gives rise to any amount of doubt regarding the credibility of the complainant. 19. In view of all these discrepancies, it would not be proper to hold that the petitioner had outraged the modesty of the complainant on 01.10.2017. 20. In the normal course, this Court would not go into to the task of re-appreciating evidence and would have restricted itself to the question of whether the procedure had been followed properly and whether adequate opportunity had been given to the petitioner to make out his case. However, in view of the facts that these discrepancies were never considered by either the enquiry officer or by the Principal District Judge or the appellate forum, it has become necessary for this Court to ascertain whether, the complaint of the complainant could be treated to be a true complaint. 21. It is clear that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident. The only witness, who can speak about the alleged incident is the complainant herself. The various discrepancies in the statements made by the complainant, from time to time, make it clear that credence cannot be given to 15 the statements of the complainant. In the absence of any other material or evidence, the petitioner cannot be held to have outraged the modesty of the complainant. 22. In view of the violation of the procedures set out in the Act 14 of 2013 and in view of the aforesaid reasons, due to which this Court is not willing to believe the version of the complainant, this Writ Petition has to be allowed. 23. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned Order passed by the 2nd respondent-Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, dated 22.06.2021 and subsequent impugned order passed by the 1st respondent, dated 18.04.2023 affirming the said order and the petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits, except back wages. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J _____________________ T.C.D. SEKHAR, J BSM 16 THE HON’ABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR WRIT PETITION No: 18136 of 2023 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R Raghunandan Rao) 31.12.2025 BSM