ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. Petitioner is a person, who was working as Chief Executive of Aladangady Vyavasaya Seva Sahahaki Bank, Aladangady, Belathangadi taluk, Dakshina Kannada district. It appears there were complaints of harassment of women workers in the bank by the petitioner and in this context as per the directions of the second respondent – Karnataka State Women’s Commission – the Board of Management of the first respondent-bank had constituted a committee for complaints against sexual harassment at work place and one Ms Asha Nayak, an Advocate, headed the committee. It also transpires that a good number of members of the committee were drawn from the staff of the very bank and the very branch also.
2. When the committee had been constituted, the petitioner was a little apprehensive of the composition of the committee and in this regard he had approached this Court by filing WP No 20515 of 2005, seeking for a declaration that the directions issued by the second respondent-commission to the first respondent management of the bank to constitute a committee to hold an enquiry into the complaints of the fourth respondent-complainant to be illegal and without jurisdiction and also for quashing the resolution of the bank dated 10-3-2005, constituting such committee. The petitioner had also sought for quashing of the entire proceedings of the committee and other prayers. The main ground urged therein was that several members of the committee were persons who were prejudiced against the petitioner, particularly as they were themselves complainants against the petitioner and moreover had participated in some demonstrations held for condemning the attitude and the oppressive acts on the part of the petitioner.
3. However, this Court while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition and dismissed it without going into the merits, but recorded the request of the petitioner that he may be permitted to give representations not only to the second respondent-commission but also to the State of Karnataka, Department of Co-operation, Bangalore, and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, reserving such liberty sought for by the petitioner.
4. It appears, the petitioner in fact had given such representations to the second respondent-commission as well as to the state government It further transpires that in the meanwhile, the committee, which enquired into the complaint dated 6-8-2004 [copy at Annexure-C], was of the view that the petitioner had been indulged in acts of harassment against the complainant for the past eight years and the harassment amounted to sexual harassment The committee also found that several witnesses who had been examined before the committee also gave vivid description of the exploitative activities on the part of the petitioner. The committee also noticed that the overwhelming evidence before it indicated that the petitioner has crossed the limits decency, respect and good behaviour in public place and this was testified by witnesses who were customers of the bank also. The committee noticed that overwhelming evidence against the petitioner was not shaken in any manner and the committee was of the unanimous view that the complaint having been found to be true and that the petitioner should tender a written apology assuring that he will not conduct in such an unbecoming manner in future and should also pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant by way of damage, in terms of its order dated 22-12-2005 (copy at Annexure-R). It appears that the committee had forwarded this finding and opinion to the second respondent-commission and the commission has in turn directed the employer to take action as it deems fit in terms of the findings and the report of the committee.
5. The first respondent management of the bank has, thereafter, issued a show cause notice dated 14-3-2006 [copy at Annexure-S] calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action as recommended by the committee should not be taken, in the sense for implementation of the recommendation of the committee. It is at this stage the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking for quashing not only the report/reconunendation of the committee but also the show cause notice issued by the first respondent-employer.
6. I have heard Ms. Sandhya, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. P. Karunakar, learned Counsel for the first and fifth respondent-management of the bank, as also Sri B Veerappa, teamed Additional Government Advocate, appearing for the State.
7. I have been taken through the impugned order. The main contention urged on behalf of the petitioner by Ms Sandhya, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the report/order of the committee is vitiated due to biased action on the part of the members of the committee; that the committee comprised of several members who themselves had complained against the petitioner, that they had also participated in certain demonstrations against the conduct of the petitioner and the proposed action in terms of the show cause notice at Annexure-S being based on the recommendation of the committee comprising of such persons, the action is not fair, that the petitioner has not been given a lair and objective opportunity to substantiate his case and therefore the report as well as the action to show cause based on the recommendation of the committee should be quashed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the pleadings in the writ petition contained in WP No 20515 of 2005, filed by the petitioner earlier, in support of the submission of the plea of bias having operated against the petitioner.
8. Learned Counsel for the bank, on the other hand, submits that as the committee comprised of several independent members, who had held an enquiry and had examined several witnesses and had recorded its findings objectively considering the evidence before the committee, though it comprised of some employees also, that by itself cannot be a ground to invalidate the report.
9. Sri. B. Veerappa, learned AOA, supports this submission and points out that the committee had examined several customers also, who are independent third parties and who have testified against the petitioner and his conduct and that they that they had actually witnessed acts of harassment on the part of the petitioner.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions at the Bar. The question as to whether the first respondent employer is State or not is not free from doubt Nevertheless, as it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the action taken or action proposed to be taken under the show cause notice issued by the first respondent being pursuant to the directions of the second respondent – Karnataka State Women’s Commission – for constitution of a committee and for taking further action and the second respondent being an organization which could be treated as ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the matter is nevertheless examined, without going into the correctness or otherwise of such submission, I have proceeded to examine the merits of the matter on an assumption that the submission on behalf of the petitioner is tenable.
11. However, on examination, I find that the argument of bias and the likely prejudice to the petitioner in the present situation due to bias cannot be accepted, as the committee had referred to and relied upon the depositions of independent third party witnesses in arriving at the conclusion. The petitioner was a person heading the bank at the place and was the responsible person even in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka v. State Of Rajasthan and a person who should have taken care of the women employees and should have protected them. Unfortunately, the complaint is against the very person who should have taken care of and should have protected women employees. The demonstration etc., earlier by other women employees who were members of the committee, was in the context of a series of such acts on the part of the petitioner and as noticed by the committee, such oppressive acts on the part of the petitioner dated back to 6 to 7 years. There was overwhelming evidence before the committee to conclude that the petitioner was guilty of the charge of harassment amounting to sexual harassment at a workplace. Assuming that in a situation where some of the members of the committee if were persons who had complained earlier against the very person whose conduct was being enquired into, the plea of bias could have been invoked by the person, in the present case, I am convinced that this is not a matter where interference, particularly in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for relieving the petitioner from the consequences of his acts, is warranted.
12. I notice that the committee had recommended to secure a letter of apology from the petitioner assuring the complainants and other women employees that he will not indulge in such acts again and a token amount of Rs 10,000/- is to be awarded as compensation to the victim of such harassment by way of damages. Then, I am of the view that it is too trivial a penalty on the petitioner and not warranting interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction even at the stage of issuing show cause notice by the employer, proposing the imposition of punishment.
13. The show cause notice itself is issued by the first respondent-employer, which is not a public body, but a private agricultural cooperative bank. The question of quashing a report of the enquiry committee constituted by the first respondent-employer assuming that it is as per the direction of the second respondent – Karnataka State Women’s Commission – does not arise.
14. Even on examination of the merits of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, I am not satisfied that the report deserves to be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari.
15. If the show cause notice issued by the bank is only for the purpose of seeking a letter of apology from the petitioner and to direct the petitioner to compensate the complainant-victim for harassment, to pay a sum of Rs 10,000/- by way of damages, I am of the view that the petitioner should feel relieved about such proposition and not feel aggrieved, as having regard to the finding and the materials against the petitioner, even if the first respondent should have proposed a more stringent action, it could not have been said that the employer as wrong.
16. In the light of the impugned action and show cause notice being in the context of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the guidelines issued in the case of VISHAKA (supra) and being prior to the Introduction of the Bill (Bill No VIII of 2006, enacting the Working Women (Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplaces) Act, 2006 [for short, the Act], I have examined the entire case on the touchstone of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the guidelines issued in the case of VISHAKA [supra] and I am of the definite view that interference in a matter of present nature in the exercise of writ jurisdiction can only amount to give a go-bye to the directions and the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of VISHAKA [supra] and not either for acting in consonance with the guidelines or for implementation of the guidelines. Protection in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the guidelines issued in the case of VISHAKA [supra] is to be given to harassed women at workplaces, to prevent exploitation and to provide safeguard to susceptible persons. The approach and examination can only be from this angle and not by treating as though the petitioner is a victim of an intended and deliberate design or act on the part of the respondents. Interference and relief to a person like the petitioner in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in a situation of this nature would only be a travesty of fair-play and justice and will virtually amount to giving a go-by to the guidelines issued In VISHAKA case [supra]. Even in terms of this judgment, it was the duty of the petitioner, who was also the responsible person’ at the workplace, where the fifth respondent-complainant was working, to ensure, prevent or deter commission of acts of sexual harassment and if there were to be such acts to provide a mechanism for prevention, resolution and settlement of prosecution of persons indulging in acts of sexual harassment Unfortunately, this is a case where the protector has himself turned into predator.
17. In fact the attitude of the petitioner to the notice issued to him by the committee, was one of showing utter contempt to the committee and even to the extent of questioning the very competence of the committee to call upon him to respond to the complaint of the fifth respondent and to the extent of suggesting motives to the committee itself. The petitioner had not cared to file any tenable reply or response to the notice issued by the committee, defending or justifying his action nor had he denied the complaint against him. The conduct was one of the total non-cooperation for the enquiry and the functioning of the committee. This is not what is expected from a person who is himself in the fiduciary capacity of a ‘responsible person’ at a workplace.
18. Viewed from any angle, I do not find this to be a fit case for interference either with the report of the committee (Annexure-R] or the show cause notice [Annexure-S] and for quashing the same, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
19. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, reserving liberty to the parties to take such other action as is open to them in law.