The sixth prayer which was pressed related to respondent No.2 Ashok Chaturvedi .
The appellant had companyplained of sexual harassment by her senior Sunil Uke, Joint Secretary in the department and Ashok Chaturvedi.
In W.P. C No.7971 of 2008 the appellant had made several prayers but during the companyrse of hearing in the High Court, five of the prayers were number pressed with liberty to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
In the order dated 12th November, 2008 a direction was given by the High Court to expeditiously companyclude the enquiry.
The Committee gave its Report on 19th May, 2008.
This Committee gave its Report on 23rd January, 2009.
In the Contempt Petition filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court, it was brought out that the Committee inquiring into the allegation against Ashok Chaturvedi had since given its Report.
It appears that pursuant to the Report an order dated 22nd September, 2009 was passed against the appellant but she disputed that this order was based on the Report.
A few brief facts are necessary for a proper appreciation of the companytroversy before us.
The allegation of sexual harassment by Sunil Uke was looked into by a Committee companystituted for this purpose.
Madan B. Lokur, J. Leave granted.
The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12th November, 2009 passed by the Delhi High Court in Contempt Case C No.449 of 2009.
A separate enquiry was held by a separate Committee into the allegation of sexual harassment by Ashok Chaturvedi.
By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court held that the respondents had number companymitted any violation of the order dated 12th November, 2008 passed in W.P. C No.7971 of 2008.
It was prayed that he should be asked to proceed on leave pending the independent enquiry into the appellants companyplaint of sexual harassment so that this respondent companyld number use his power and authority to influence any independent enquiry.
As will be evident from the prayer, the enquiry relating to the allegation of sexual harassment made by the appellant was already pending.
