1 2026:CGHC:24742 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3151 of 2021 1 - Dr. Deepti Dhurandhar D/o Shri Rajendra Dhurandhar Aged About 36 Years Permanent R/o Mahadevghat, Ring Road Chowk, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Presently Residing At - Jaiswal Building, Gali No. 4 Near Jyoti Kirana Store, Jabdapara, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Medical Services, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Chhattisgarh State Mental Health Hospital Through Hospital Superintendent, Sendri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Dr. B.K. Banarjee S/o Late Shri P.K. Banerjee Aged About 53 Years R/o Shrivihar Sarkanda, District Bilaspur, Presently Posted As Psychiatrist At State Mental Health Hospital, Sendri, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Director Department Of Health And Medical Services, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ..respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Tanusha Pathak, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Parag Kotecha, Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Keshav Gupta, G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 18.06.2026 Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) : “1. Quash and set aside enquiry report dated 29/07/2019( Annexure P/3) passed by the Women Harassment Committee and direct them to initiate fresh enquiry by taking on record all evidences placed -2- by the petitioner. 2. Direct the respondent authorities to suspend the work of the respondent no. 3 and initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and his head quarter be made to some other place. 3. Any other relief which the Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner and the cost of the petition may awarded in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Ms. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is working on the post of Psychiatry social worker at State Mental Hospital, Sendri, District Bilaspur (C.G.) since 2013. She would contend that respondent No.3, who was also working in same hospital, sexually assaulted the petitioner and tried to outrage her modesty and therefore, various complaints were made before the superior authorities to take action against him. She would further contend that the matter was referred to ‘Vishakha Committee’; report was submitted and matter was closed as an FIR was registered against respondent No.3. Ms. Pathak would contend that in criminal case, respondent No.3 has already been acquitted vide judgment dated 19.06.2022. She would submit that with regard to prayer clause 10.2, action has already been taken against respondent No.3, therefore, the petitioner does not want to press said relief. She would further submit that the petitioner may be permitted to prefer an appeal against the order passed by ‘Vishakha Committee’ dated 29.07.2019. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that action has already been taken against respondent No.3 and therefore, there is no occasion to reserve liberty in favour of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the findings recorded by ‘Vishakha Committee’. 3 4. Heard. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that the report was submitted by ‘Vishakha Committee’ prior to conclusion of criminal trial, therefore, the present petition is disposed of reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to take remedy available under the law. 6. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha