1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the findings of the Committee, as entered in Ext.P21, based on a complaint by the 6th respondent, which is produced at Ext.P10. The complaint is under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘Act of 2013’ for short). Ext.P7 report by the petitioner is said to have resulted in the complaint. The Enquiry Committee conducted an enquiry as per Section 11 of the Act of 2013 and found that the petitioner is liable to apologize to the 6th respondent; which is impugned herein.

2. The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in the College of Engineering, Thalassery, is also the Finance Coordinator. A personality development training program was conducted from 25th to 27th July, 2015, coordinated by the 6th respondent as Programme Coordinator. A report on expenditure was to be made by the petitioner regarding the training program, which was made as per Ext.P7. In that report, the petitioner had made a statement that the “original report was abducted by Smt. P. Rinitha” (sic). The petitioner intended to convey that it was taken away and suppressed by the 6th respondent.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent specifically objected to the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The 6th respondent also submits that there is a wider connotation to sexual harassment, as seen from sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 2013. The actions enumerated therein also would constitute an offense leading to sexual harassment, is the argument.

4. The petitioner, in his capacity of the Finance Coordinator, had made a report, on the basis of which the competent authority will have to find if the expenditures were proper or not. There are some discrepancies pointed out in the report, which were alleged to be occasioned by the negligence of the Programme Coordinator, the 6th respondent. It was also alleged that the original report was abducted (sic) by the 6th respondent. The 6th respondent had replied to the said allegations by Exhibit P8; which was considered by the Monitoring Committee (not one constituted under the Act of 2013, but, an administrative committee), as seen from Exhibit P9. The Committee, based on the allegation of harassment, resolved to recommend that the Principal call for a written explanation from the 6th respondent as to the allegation raised by her. Significantly, the Committee simultaneously directed the 6th respondent to explain as to why the report of the programme was revised. Evidently, the first recommendation had led to the complaint under the Act of 2013.

5. The 6th respondent then filed Exhibit P10 complaint with the following allegations:

(4) According to the complainant, the report submitted by the respondent is prejudiced, ill-motivated and with mala-fide intention. The report is submitted by the respondent suppressing the material facts. In the report, the respondent alleged that, the complainant had abducted the report (Meant the report submitted by the complainant after conclusion of the training program) and made forgery in the attendance sheet. These two allegations against the complainant are serious in nature and which is without having any pinch of truth.

(5) The complainant submits that, the respondent had prepared the report not on facts & real circumstances. It is ill-motivated and willfully and intentionally prepared to sexually harass the complainant at the work place. The respondent had questioned the dignity & integrity of the complainant and abused his power as a Financial Coordinator and exceeded the limit for his own whims and fancies. Earlier, the respondent had submitted a letter dt. 20-10-2015 to the Principal in which, the respondent contended that, he had seen the report (Meant the report submitted by the complainant after conclusion of the training program) and it is subsequently missing from his file. That itself shows that, the complainant had