- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1205 OF 2025 (L-RES) BETWEEN: USHARANI D/O LATE RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. S-1, BINDU ENCLAVE, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 097. …APPELLANT (BY MS.MAITREYI KRISHNAN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERUGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 029. 2. EXL SERVICES PVT LTD EMBASSY (VRINDAVAN) TECH VILLAGE, TOWER 2D, PHASE-1, OUTER RING ROAD, SARGAPUR, DEVARABEESANAHALI, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 MARATHATHALLI, BENGALURU-560 087. 3. ANAND ASHRIT S/O GOPALA ASHRIT, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.93, ASHRAYA NILAYAN, GOPALA ASHRITHA, 1ST CROSS, RAMANA GARDEN, 2ND MAIN, CHAMUNDESHWARI LAYOUT, VIDYARANYPURA, BENGALURU - 560 097. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.N.SUDEV HEGDE., AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.19906/2016 AND GRANT THE APPELLANT THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 28.03.2025 IN W.P.NO.36854/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION B) ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS INCLUDING THE COSTS OF THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M NADAF) This intra Court appeal is by the unsuccessful petitioner under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.36854/2016. 2. The learned Single Judge under the impugned order rejected the Writ Petition by observing that the Court’s observations shall not prejudice the petitioner either in the pending criminal proceedings as against the third respondent or in the pending suit which is filed by her calling in question the second respondent’s decision to remove her from service. 3. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the learned Single Judge. 4. The brief factual matrix leading to filing this appeal are as under: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 5. The petitioner filed the Writ Petition seeking following reliefs: "A. Issue Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, to the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 24-05-2016 vide Annexure-C, to the Writ petition. B. Issue direction to the respondent No.1 to direct the respondent No.2 to implement the order dt.12-04-2016 vide Annexure-B, and B-2. Issue a writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate directions to the 2nd respondent to take action against the 3rd respondent under Section 13(3) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 read with Rule 9 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013. B-3. Issue a writ, direction or order directing the 1st respondent to pass appropriate directions to the 2nd respondent to take action against the 3rd respondent under Section 13(3) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 2013 in regard to compensation to the Petitioner. C. Grant such order reliefs as deem fit to grant in the above case and cost, in the interest of justice and equity." 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the third respondent sexually harassed her while she was working with the second respondent in the United States of America, and that she has filed a complaint with the second respondent’s senior officials in the month of July 2013 immediately on returning to India. It is her further contention that though immediate action is not taken, Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is constituted and that this Committee unjustifiably has dismissed her complaint on 28.07.2014. Then the petitioner filed an appeal with the first respondent under Section 18 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short ‘the POSH Act’). The appeal was registered in Dispute No.05/2014- 15. In response to the notice, the second respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 contested the appeal, but the third respondent remained absent. The first respondent by its order dated 12.04.2016, allowed the appeal stating that the petitioner has established that the second respondent did not take any action to transfer her from the existing project to another project and that it did not restrict the third respondent from appraising her performance as required under Section 12(1) of the POSH Act and Rule 8 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013. The first respondent has also concluded that the second respondent is liable to pay penalty under Section 26(1)(c) of the POSH Act while observing that the penal proceedings could be filed as contemplated under Section 27(1) of the POSH Act. 7. Subsequent to the order passed by the first respondent, the petitioner filed a FIR against the third respondent for offence punishable under Section 354A of the IPC with jurisdictional Police. The said criminal case - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 ended in discharging the third respondent on an application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C vide order dated 29.04.2016. The order was the subject matter in Crl.R.P.25056/2016 before the Sessions Court ended in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the order of discharge. The said order is called in question in Crl.P.No.791/2019 and pending for consideration. 8. The learned Single Judge at Paragraph No.7.1[iii] has observed that if the ICC has dismissed the petitioner’s complaint and the first respondent is persuaded to accept such a decision is wrong, the petitioner should have sought for consequential relief in this regard in such proceedings. If the first respondent has not either considered or granted the relief despite pleadings and a request, the petitioner should have taken appropriate action against such failure. The petitioner having not taken any action cannot seek the same relief by implementation of the first respondent’s order. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 9. Further the learned Single Judge at Paragraph No.7.2 has observed that the third respondent has left the service with the second respondent many years back, and that the second respondent has settled all his dues. If after all these circumstances, and the lapse of time, if there is any direction to the first respondent to call upon the second respondent to take against the third respondent for proceeding on misconduct or for damages, it would be an exercise in futility. Accordingly, rejected the Writ Petition with an observation that the Court’s observations shall not prejudice the petitioner either in the pending criminal proceedings or in the pending suit which is filed by her. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question in this Writ Appeal. 10. Heard, Ms.Maitreyi Krishnan., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.M.N.Sudev Hegde., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 11. Ms.Maitreyi Krishnan., reiterated the same submissions taken before the learned Single Judge, but she is unable to answer the query of the Court with respect to the observations of learned Single Judge in Paragraph Nos. 7.1[iii] and 7.2. However, learned counsel submits that the observation made by learned Single Judge of this Court shall not prejudice the petitioner’s remedy in the pending criminal and civil proceedings against the third respondent and second respondent respectively. 12. Having noted her submissions regarding the observation by the learned Single Judge, we are of the opinion that the same is unwarranted since the learned Single Judge in the order has clarified the said apprehension in the order portion, which reads as under: "ORDER The petition is rejected without interference, but this Court’s observations shall not prejudice the petitioner either in the pending criminal proceedings as against the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15774-DB WA No. 1205 of 2025 third respondent or in the pending suit which is filed by her calling in the question the second respondent's decision to remove her from service." 13. In view of the above, no case has been made out to call for any interference with the order of the learned Single Judge at the hands of this Court. The appeal sans merits and is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1