The main legal point established in the judgment is that initiating a fresh inquiry into the same allegations of sexual harassment, while a previous recommendation is pending, is impermissible and violates the principle of 'double jeopardy'.

JUDGMENT :

B. VEERAPPA, J.

1. Sri.L.Govindraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prayers (c) & (d) may be dismissed as not pressed for time being.

The said submission is placed on record.

Accordingly, prayers (c) & (d) in the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.

2. The petitioner filed the writ petition for writ of certiorari to quash the order/notice dated 23.06.2014 issued by the first respondent and to declare that second respondent has no power to hold second inquiry in respect of the same charges against the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was working as an Engineer in the second respondent-Company and as on the date of filing the writ petition, he was holding the post of Manager, CSC Business Analytics Team and Programme Manager. The petitioner's performance has been rated with top ratings by the second respondent-Company as per employees rating system in the past 11 years. When things stood thus; the petitioner received an e-mail on 29.01.2014 from an employee of HR Department requesting the petitioner to attend a meeting on the same day. The meeting however turned out to be an inquiry for alleged sexual harassment. The petitioner was forced to resign to his services upon conclusion of the meeting, without receiving a copy of the complaint and he was also not aware of the allegations made against him.

4. Upon regaining self-composure, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Committee member expressing his displeasure over the manner in which the proceedings were conducted and also forwarded a copy of that e-mail to his Manager. The petitioner's resignation was however accepted on 31.01.2014 and he was to be relieved from service on 25.03.2014 as is evident from Annexure-G. The petitioner was subjected to further inquiry on 03.02.2014 and then asked to sign documents prepared by the Committee. The petitioner declined and informed the same to his manager.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner had not received correspondence from the first respondent, but he was allowed to continue in employment even after 25.03.2014. In the circumstances, he assumed that the matter was closed. Indeed, the petitioner was sent to the United States on an assignment on 28.04.2014. Once again he was sent to the United States on 12.05.2014 on a project. While in the Unites States, he received a communication from the first respondent dated 15.05.2014, enclosing a report dated 11.05.2014 holding the petitioner guilty of some of the charges of alleged sexual harassment. The first respondent recommended for termination of petitioner's service. After receipt of e-mail, petitioner submitted his response reiterating that he is innocent in the matter while pointing out flagrant statutory violations made by the Committee. When things stood thus, the first respondent again issued the impugned notice as per Annexure-V dated 23.06.2014 initiating fresh investigation/inquiry of the complaint filed by Ms. Asharani.S on 21.01.2014. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. The first respondent has filed the objections to the writ petition, contending that the writ petition filed against initiation of fresh investigation is not maintainable. On receipt of the complaint relating to the sexual harassment against the petitioner on 21.01.2014, the first respondent discharging its responsibilities envisaged under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short the "Act") conducted an inquiry in a fair and unbiased manner. It is further contended that though the sexual harassment Rules were notified in December, 2013, there was lack of clarity in respect of this requirement during the early days and keeping in mind the sensitivity of the issue of sexual harassment and with an intension to protect the identity of the victim, a copy of the complaint was not served