High Court of Bombay at Goa Hears Writ Petition by Professor Against Transfer Order Pending Departmental Inquiry. Petition Challenges Orders Relating to Leave Regularization and Inquiry Report Under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

Writ petition challenging an administrative order directing the petitioner to report to the Public Health Department pending a contemplated inquiry, along with subsequent inquiry-related orders and leave regularization.

Quashing of order dated 19/06/2017; quashing of order dated 27/02/2020 and regularization of 39.5 days leave; quashing of undated inquiry report and fresh inquiry order dated 03/08/2021; compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and costs.

The petitioner challenged the order requiring him to report to the Public Health Department pending inquiry, based on complaints of harassment and alleged misconduct, and subsequent adverse orders.

A Complaint Committee report in 2008 found no present sexual harassment and recommended the Dean issue guidelines; a subsequent committee in 2016 opined the allegations related to academic professional misconduct and not sexual harassment; the Minister's note dated 9 June 2017 directed the petitioner be kept without posting pending vigilance inquiry.

Whereas, Inquiry against Dr. Prashant E. Natekar, Professor & Head of the Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College, Bambolim - Goa, is being contemplated and Dr. Prashant E. Natekar, Professor & Head of the Department of Anatomy, Goa Medical College, Bambolim shall report to Public Health Department, Porvorim, until further Orders. In view of the foregoing, THE COMMITEE IS HAMPERED BY THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED SEXUAL HARASSEMENT HAS OCCURED MORE THAN THAN 3 YEARS AGO AND THEREFORE THIS DELAY OBVIATES AUTHENTIC VERIFICATION. MOREOVER, SINCE DR XXXX HAS CLEARLY EXPRESSED THAT PRESNETLY THERE IS NO SEXUAL HARASSMENT, ONLY PROFOUND VERBAL ABUSE, the following are the recommendations of the Complainant Committee: - 01. Dr. Prashant Natekar should ensure that no opportunity/situation which is potentially open to the point of sexual exploitation be allowed to arise in his department. 02. Dr. xxxx should immediately inform in writing to the appropriate authority if she is subjected to further sexual harassment. 03. In the course of enquiry, it was clearly obvious that there was and is an unhealthy working scenario in the department of Anatomy, with gross indiscipline prevailing. These work related issues must be dealt with by the appropriate authority that is the Dean. It would be prudent for the Dean to issue suitable guidelines for the smooth functioning of the Department given the present status of affairs. Furthermore a course in communication skills and personnel relations would greatly benefit all the staff in the department of Anatomy. This matter is very serious. Dr. Natekar to be kept without posting till the vigilance inquiry is over and may be asked to report to Public Health Department and his charge may be given to the next senior most Doctor in that Department. Secretary (Health) may issue directions

Petitioner was functioning as Head of Department of Anatomy at Goa Medical College; respondent no.7 complained on 7 April 2008 alleging harassment; respondent no.7 filed a second complaint on 12 November 2008 alleging sexual harassment; a Complaint Committee conducted inquiry on 19/20 November 2008 and submitted a report finding no present sexual harassment, only verbal abuse, and made recommendations; no action was taken thereafter. More than seven years later, respondent no.7 complained again on 18 July 2016 alleging workplace harassment and mental torture; respondent no.8 complained on 21 November 2016 alleging corrupt behaviour, undisciplinary conduct, and research misconduct. A College Committee met on 17 December 2016 and opined that the allegations did not fall under the Sexual Harassment Committee but pertained to academic professional misconduct. The Under Secretary (Health) prepared a note dated 9 January 2017 recommending preliminary inquiry and possible major penalty under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The Minister for Health, by handwritten notes dated 9 June 2017, directed that the petitioner be kept without posting until the vigilance inquiry was over and report to the Public Health Department. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19 June 2017 was issued. The writ petition was filed on 22 January 2021; amendment was permitted on 8 December 2021 adding prayers CC and DD. The High Court heard the matter, examined the relevant file on 1 August 2022, reserved judgment on 4 August 2022, and pronounced judgment on 5 August 2022. The provided text ends after paragraph 13, before the court's final analysis and decision.

• Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965: Rule 14