B.Harikrishna vs The State of Telangana AND 2 OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*
WRIT PETITION NO.6628 of 2023

Between:
B.Harikrishna.
… Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary,
Women Development and Child Welfare Department and two
others.
…Respondents

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 05.05.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:


THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH

1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
: Yes/No


2. Whether the copies of judgment
: Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals

3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship
: Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment

_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH


+ WRIT PETITION NO.6628 OF 2023

%Dated 05.05.2026

# B.Harikrishna
… Petitioner
and

1. $ The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Women
Development and Child Welfare Department and two others
…Respondents

! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram.

^ Counsel for Respondents : Sri S.Suman,
Learned Govt. Pleader for
Services-III.


< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :

1. (1953) 1 SCC 420

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.6628 of 2023
DATE: 05.05.2026
Between:
B.Harikrishna.
…Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Telangana, Women Development and Child
Welfare Department, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and (2)
others.
…Respondents
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed questioning the order passed
by respondent No.3 vide Proc.No.A2/DCPO/2022, dated
10.02.2023, terminating the petitioner from service as
District Child Protection Officer, Jayashankar Bhupalpally
District, and seeking to set aside the same.
Heard Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for
2.
the petitioner and Sri S.Suman, learned Government Pleader
for Services–III appearing for the respondents and perused
the material available on record.

2
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
3.
petitioner was recruited to the post of District Child
Protection Officer (DCPO) vide proceedings No.24/ICPS-
DCPU/2018 dated 13.03.2020, on contract basis for a period
of one year and thereafter extended for a period of two years
through proceedings No.24/ICPS-DCPU/2018 dated
13.03.2021.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits
4.
that from the initial appointment of the petitioner as
Assistant-cum-Data Entry Operator in 2011, as Protection
Officer (Non-Institutional Care) in 2018 and as District Child
Protection Officer in 2020, he served without any remarks to
the Organization to the satisfaction of the authorities and he
was issued an Appreciation Certificate dated 26.01.2020 by
the District Collector, Warangal (Rural), on the eve of
Republic Day.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further
5.
submit that while it being so, one Ms. V. Laxmi Prasanna, an
Outreach Worker working at District Child Protection Unit,
Jayashankar Bhupalpally, filed a complaint against the

3
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
petitioner, accompanied by one Mrs. K. Rajini, who worked as
Data Entry Operator in the Child Welfare Committee, which
is a separate unit from his place of work, alleging that the
petitioner had sexually harassed them and on the basis of the
said complaint, an Enquiry Committee of three officials was
constituted and the said Committee, without furnishing a
copy of the complaints said to have been given by
Ms. V. Laxmi Prasanna and Ms. K. Rajini, proceeded with the
enquiry.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits
6.
that in the enquiry, Ms. K. Rajini did not depose before the
Enquiry Committee and did not attend the enquiry, however,
Ms. V. Laxmi Prasanna attended the enquiry. Though Ms.
K.Rajini did not appear before the Enquiry Committee and
did not depose, merely on the basis of her alleged complaint,
which was not supplied to the petitioner despite requests and
on the basis of the allegations of Ms. V. Laxmi Prasanna,
whose statement was not supported by any other employee
examined during the enquiry, the Enquiry Committee,
through its report dated 10.11.2022, concluded that the

4
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
petitioner had physically and mentally harassed women
employees at work place and was liable for punishment under
the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for brevity ‘POSH Act).
Thereafter, the respondent No.2, through proceedings
No.2905/CPS/2022 dated 13.12.2022, issued a show cause
notice and the petitioner submitted a reply dated 16.12.2022,
seeking a copy of the complaint as well as a copy of the
Enquiry Committee report.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits
7.
that the respondent No.3, through Memo No.A2/DCPO/2022
dated 05.01.2023, directed the petitioner to attend before him
on 10.01.2023 and 13.01.2023 for explanation to the
allegations made by Ms. K. Rajini and he submitted a detailed
explanation, but without affording any opportunity, the
respondent No.3 straightaway passed the impugned
termination order dated 10.02.2023. The respondent No.2
mechanically passed a single-line order directing the
respondent No.3 to take action against him by following the
principles of natural justice. The respondent No.3, without

5
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
conducting any further enquiry, issued a Memo alleging that
the petitioner had misbehaved with one female employee,
Ms. K. Rajini, and terminated him from service without
considering his explanation, though Ms. K. Rajini had not
attended the preliminary enquiry and had not deposed before
the Enquiry Committee and in fact she had withdrawn the
complaint.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits
8.
that even assuming that the preliminary enquiry had taken
place, he could not be terminated straight away from service
and requested to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the
impugned termination order.
The learned Government Pleader for Services–III basing
9.
on the counter filed by the respondents submits that the
petitioner was taken on contract basis to implement the ICPS
scheme and the contract could be terminated at any point of
time without assigning any reasons and his contract period
expired on 12.03.2023.
10. The learned Government Pleader further submits that

Ms. V. Laxmi Prasanna, Outreach Worker and Ms. K.Rajini,

6
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
W/o. Sai Kumar, Data Entry Operator, have approached the
respondent No.2 and gave their written complaints against
the petitioner on 26.08.2022 and 20.09.2022 respectively,
alleging that the petitioner harassed them and Ms. K.Rajini
alleged that at the request of the petitioner, she visited his
house for office work, found obscene photo on his computer
and lodged complaint.
The learned Government Pleader further submits that
11.
basing on the first complaint, the respondent No.2
constituted a three-member committee vide proceedings
No.2384/ICPS/2022 dated 14.09.2022 and the said
Committee conducted an enquiry and submitted its report to
the respondent No.2 on 10.11.2022. After conclusion of the
enquiry, the respondent No.2 addressed a letter to the office
of the District Collector, Jayashankar Bhupalpally, vide
Lr.No.2905/CPS/2022 dated 31.12.2022, stating that the
petitioner had accepted that he had called the complainant to
his house and on the basis of that admission, requested the
office of the District Collector, Jayashankar Bhupalpally, to
pass appropriate orders. Basing on the said letter, the office

7
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
of the District Collector, Jayashankar Bhupalpally, issued
Memo No.A2/DCPO/2022 dated 05.01.2023 calling upon the
petitioner to attend before the District Collector, Jayashankar
Bhupalpally along with his explanation regarding the
allegations against him. For which the petitioner submitted
his explanation, in which he again admitted that he had
called the complainant to his residence. In view of the said
admission, the services were terminated by the respondent
No.3 vide proceedings No.A2/DCPO/2022 dated 10.02.2023.
Once there was an admission by the petitioner, no further
proof was required and while terminating the petitioner by
due process was followed and there are no merits and
requested to dismiss the writ petition.
12. The learned Government Pleader in support of their
contention placed reliance on the following Judgment:
1
(i) Satish Chandra Anand Vs. Union of India .
After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the entire
13.
material on record, this Court is of the considered view that
the petitioner worked as District Child Protection Officer

1
(1953) 1 SCC 420

8
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
(CDPO) on Contract Basis and his services were terminated
as per Rule 13(4) of POSH Act, 2013 on the ground that the
petitioner harassed women employee at work place in the
impugned proceedings No.A2/DCPO/2022, dated
10.02.2023.
The contention of the petitioner is that the respondent
14.
authorities terminated the services of the petitioner without
following the procedure as contemplated under POSH Act,
2013, in spite of the complaint did not come forward to
attend the oral enquiry. Only basing on the preliminary
Enquiry Report, without giving any opportunity to the
petitioner for examination of the witnesses and merely basing
on the assumptions and presumptions, the respondents
passed the impugned order on 10.02.2023 and the same is
against the principles of natural justice.
15. In the instant case, Ms. V. Prasanna Laxmi and
Ms. K.Rajini made complaints against the petitioner to the
respondent No. 2 on 26.08.2022 and 20.09.2022 respectively.
Basing on the said complaint dated 26.08.2022, the
respondent No. 2 constituted a Three-Member Committee

9
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
vide Proc. No. 2384/ICPS/2022 dated 14.09.2022 and
directed the Committee to conduct a detailed enquiry and
submit report. Thereafter, the said committee submitted its
report to the Respondent No. 2 on 10.11.2022, concluding
that the charge against the petitioner was proved. In the said
Equity Report, there is no mention of issuance of any notice
to the petitioner. In fact, before conducting enquiry the
respondents have to issue notice to the petitioner and in the
Counter also the respondents nowhere mentioned that the
internal committee have issued notice to the petitioner. The
internal committed has not followed the Section 9 and 10 of
the POSH Act.
The Section 9 of POSH Act reads as under:
16.
(1) Any aggrieved woman may make, in writing, a complaint of
sexual harassment at workplace to the Internal Committee if so
constituted, or the Local Committee, in case it is not so constituted,
within a period of three months from the date of incident and in
case of a series of incidents, within a period of three months from
the date of last incident:
Provided that where such complaint cannot be made in
writing, the Presiding Officer or any Member of the Internal
Committee or the Chairperson or any Member of the Local

10
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
Committee, as the case may be, shall render all reasonable
assistance to the woman for making the complaint in writing:
Provided further that the Internal Committee or, as the case
may be, the Local Committee may, for the reasons to be recorded in
writing, extend the time limit not exceeding three months, if it is
satisfied that the circumstances were such which prevented the
woman from filing a complaint within the said period.
(2) Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on
account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise,
her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make
a complaint under this section.
17. As per Section 9 of the POSH Act, the complaint has to
file within a period of three months from the date of incident
and in case of a series of incidents, within a period of three
months from the date of last incident. The record shows that
the complaints made by both the complainants on
26.08.2022 and 20.09.2022, there is no specific date as to
when the petitioner harassed the complaints and the
internal committed without taking into account of the same,
proceeded further.
Section 10 of the POSH Act reads as under:
18.

11
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
Conciliation :
(1) The Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local
Committee, may, before initiating an inquiry under section 11 and
at the request of the aggrieved woman take steps to settle the
matter between her and the respondent through conciliation:
Provided that no monetary settlement shall be made as a
basis of conciliation.
(2) Where settlement has been arrived at under sub-section
(1), the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may
be, shall record the settlement so arrived and forward the same to
the employer or the District Officer to take action as specified in the
recommendation.
(3) The Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the
case may be, shall provide the copies of the settlement as recorded
under sub-section (2) to the aggrieved woman and the respondent.
(4) Where a settlement is arrived at under sub-section (1), no
further inquiry shall be conducted by the Internal Committee or the
Local Committee, as the case may be.
As per the above Section, the internal committee , before
initiating an inquiry under section 11 of the POSH Act they
have to conduct conciliation between the petitioner and the
aggrieved woman. In the instant case, the internal
committee without following Section 9, 10 and 11 of the
POSH Act submitted enquiry report. Basing on the Enquiry

12
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
Report, the respondent No.3 passed impugned order
terminating the services of the petitioner and the same is
liable to be set aside.
19. The contention of the respondents is that the
petitioner was appointed on contract basis and his services
can be terminated at any time without issuing notice and the
said contention of the respondents is not acceptable. It is a
settled law as held by this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a catena of Judgments that even a contract or
outsourcing employee is also entitled for regular enquiry
before the termination orders issued on the allegation which
are affective and stigma on their future employment. The
other contention of the respondents that the petitioner, in his
explanation, admitted that he had called the complainant to
his residence and that is sufficient for passing the impugned
orders, but in the same explanation, the petitioner has
disputed the allegations and has also given other particulars.
Without taking into consideration of the entire explanation
and without conducting any enquiry, the respondents have
passed the impugned order and the contentions of the

13
SK, J
W.P.No.6628 of 2023
respondents are not acceptable. In view of the same, the
impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 is liable to be
set aside.
20. The Judgment relied on by the learned Government
Pleader in Satish Chandra Anand Vs. Union of India
does not apply to the facts of the instant case.
(supra)
21. In view of the above finding, the writ petition is allowed
and the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3 in
A2/DCPO/2022, dated 10.02.2023 is set aside, directing the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner, without any back
wages. However, this order does not preclude the
respondents from initiating disciplinary proceedings against
the petitioner by following due procedure, if so advised.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no orders as to
costs.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date: 05.05.2026.
Note : LR copy to be marked.
trr