ANUPAMA KHANNA vs INDRAJIT SETH, CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 06 November 2023
Judgment pronounced on: 08 November 2023
+ CONT.CAS(C) 927/2019
ANUPAMA KHANNA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit, Adv.
versus
INDRAJIT SETH, CHAIRMAN MANAGING COMMITTEE
DELHI PUBLIC SCHOOL ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Adv.
with Ms. Sakshi Mendiratta,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA
J U D G M E N T
DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. This judgment shall decide the instant petition under Section 11
and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 19711 read with Article 215 of
the Constitution of India, preferred by the petitioner against the
respondent, the then Chairman of Delhi Public School, Mathura Road,
New Delhi, for non-compliance of the order dated 16.04.2019 passed
by this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2657/2019.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner alleged that she was
subjected to sexual harassment at her workplace at the hands of the
respondent, who was exonerated of all charges by the Internal

1 CC Act

Complaints Committee pursuant to which the petitioner filed Writ
Petition (Civil) 2657/2019 seeking following reliefs:

“(a) Issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order whereby quashing the report of the Internal
Complaints Committee dated 08.06.2018;
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order prohibiting the Respondent No.2 from
supervising, assigning or assessing the work of performance of the
Petitioner during the pendency of the complaint of sexual
harassment at workplace u/s 9 of the Act of 2013;
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order
or Direction the Respondent No.1 School thereby prohibiting the
said Respondent from reflecting the memos served upon the
Petitioner by the Respondent No.2 pursuant to the complaint u/s 9
of the Act of 2013 dated 22.01.2018 instituted by the Petitioner
against the Respondent No.2;
(e) To issue Writ or Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Order or Direction thereby awarding compensation and damages
for the continuous mental harassment subjected to the Petitioner by
the Respondent No.1 School at behest of the Respondent No.2 as
well as for contravening the provisions of the Sexual Harassment
of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act
rules 2013;
(f) To issue guidelines pertaining to instances of Mental
Harassment at workplace arising directly or indirectly from
instances of Sexual Harassment at Workplace;
(g) To issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Order or Direction thereby directing the Respondent No. 1 School
to award costs to the Petitioner for the cost of litigation borne by
the said Petitioner.
(g) Pass any such other order or direction as the Court may deem
fit and proper grant inlight of the facts and circumstances of the
present case.”

3. The matter came up for final hearing on 16.04.2019 and after
the arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the parties
the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to file an appeal under
Section 18 of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace

(Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 20132 within four weeks of
the said order. Further, insofar as above mentioned relief (e) was
concerned, liberty was given to the petitioner to seek appropriate relief
under the Act or by filing a civil suit, as may be appropriate. With
regard to above mentioned relief (f), the petitioner was given liberty to
approach the Division Bench vested with PIL jurisdiction, if so
advised. Further directions were passed, which are extracted as under:-

2 The Act

“5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner filed W.P.(C) 1262/2018 in which this Court vide order
dated 12th February, 2018 directed the Directorate of Education to
consider the petitioner’s representation dated 07th October, 2017
and decide the same within 12 weeks. It is submitted that the
Directorate of Education has communicated the order dated 14th
March, 2019 to the petitioner. It is submitted that respondent No.1
be directed to comply with the order dated 14th March, 2019 passed
by the Directorate of Education.
6. Learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the
order dated 14th March, 2019 is being examined by respondent
No.1 and respondent No.1 shall take appropriate decision with
respect to the order dated 14th March, 2019 within a period of three
weeks from today.
7. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as
prayer for. If the petitioner files an appeal against the report of ICC
dated 08th June, 2018 under Section 18 of Act within four weeks,
the Appellate Court shall consider the same on merits. The
petitioner is at liberty to urge all the contentions the Appellate
Court. With respect to order dated 14th March, 2019, the respondent
No.1 shall take a decision within four weeks. However, if no legal
remedies are availed in respect of order dated 14th March, 2019
within four weeks, respondent No.1 shall comply with the order
dated 14th March, 2019.
8. Pending application is disposed of.
9. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsels for the parties
under signature of Court Master.”

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner filed the instant
Contempt Petition and it is submitted that the Directorate of Education
vide order dated 14.03.2019, while deciding the representation of the
petitioner dated 07.10.2017, has passed certain directions against the
School Management to ensure that :

“1.There shall not be undue, unreasonable and arbitrary harassment
to Ms. Anupama Khanna by any functionary of the School
including the Principal of the School;
2. The adverse entry in the ACR’s of. Ms Anupama Khanna for
2016-2017 shall be removed/expunged.
3. Any Inquiry/action against any of the employee of the school
shall be processed in a just, transparent and unbiased manner.”

5. To state the grievance of the petitioner, the ACR notings
pertaining to the year 2016-17 are imperative to be expunged in the
light of the order of the Directorate of Education dated 14.03.2019
since such notings impose blemish on her services rendered by her in
the institution, and it is pointed out that she has filed Service Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 8394/18, sub judice before another Bench,
wherein she is challenging departmental promotion of another teacher
in the institution. Hence, alleging that respondent No.1 has
deliberately and wilfully flouted and disobeyed the order dated
16.04.2019, it is prayed that respondent be punished suitably.
6. On notice to the respondent, a short affidavit has been filed by
Ms. Reema Sharma, Principal-cum-Manager, Delhi Public School,
Mathura Road, New Delhi, in which inter alia it is pointed out that
Mr. Inderjeet Seth, the then Chairman of the School, has since
expired on 23.03.2022 and the then Principal Mr. Manohar Lal stands
superannuated on 31.03.2019; and that she is in-charge as Principal-

cum-Manager of the School w.e.f. 17.01.2022. It is stated by Ms.
Reema Sharma that the directions dated 16.04.2019 passed by this
Court in W.P. (C) 2657/2019 have been complied with in letter and
spirit and the School Management has duly responded vide its letter
dated 24.04.2019 to the Directorate of Education with regard to its
order dated 14.03.2019 and they have not received any query
thereafter.

DECISION:

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, ex facie the
present Contempt Petition does not survive. In the first place, both the
Chairman as well as the Principal against whom allegations were
levelled, have since passed away. Needless to point out that the initial
writ proceedings culminating in order dated 16.04.2019 were by all
means in personam against the contemnors(s). Secondly, although
respondent has not placed a copy of the ACR of the petitioner for the
period 2016-17 in terms of direction dated 15.11.2022 of this Court,
however, it is pointed out by the learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the respondent School that they have already filed their detailed
replies along with a short affidavit and it is specifically stated that
there are no adverse entries in the ACR of the petitioner for the year
2016-17, and therefore, question of expunging any adverse remarks
does not arise. Since there are no adverse remarks in the ACR, the
question of filing its copy would be meaningless. Evidently, the said
order stands substantially complied with.
8. In response to the aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for
the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner is still facing

harassment while discharging her duties. In light of the arguments
made above, it is observed that the contempt proceedings cannot be
kept open perennially and there is nothing to discern that there is any
wilful default or disobedience to the directions of the Court in terms of
the order dated 16.04.2019.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition is
dismissed.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.
NOVEMBER 08, 2023
Sadique