Sushma Alaguvadival vs Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, New Delhi

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Sushma Alaguvadival - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of Atomic Energy, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 6995 of 2014, 27067 & 27068 of 2013 & M.P. Nos. 2 of 2014, 1 & 2 of 2013
Decided On : 06-12-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:R. Bharanidharan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:K. Venkataswamy Babu, Senior Panel Counsel, K. Thilagaraj, Advocate.

Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Section 4 - Petitioner submitted a complaint regarding a Sexual Harassment caused to her by respondent - Complaint was published in news media and respondent, seeking Anticipatory Bail and interim bail was granted - Initially, a Committee to deal with allegations of Sexual Harassment was constituted by respondent/employer and said committee had not conducted any enquiry. Thereafter, second committee was constituted, second committee considered allegations and submitted its reports - Instances narrated would reveal that petitioner could able to establish allegations against respondent as instances were brought to notice of husband of petitioner by her - All such evidences were also produced by complainant before second committee constituted, who in turn, gone into nature of evidences and accordingly, made a finding, holding that allegations against respondent are held proved – Held, it is responsibility of all concerned to ensure that complaints of Sexual harassment are dealt in accordance with provisions of Act and within a reasonable period of time - All these aspects are very much important and must be part of administrative efficiency - In an efficient administration, if such allegations are addressed properly, then every employee will get better working atmosphere to perform their duties and responsibilities in an efficient manner - One has to imagine, an employee, who suffered such harassments from hands of superiors, no one can expect that such employee will be in a position to perform her duties efficiently and effectively - If so, is it not the duty of the employer to ensure an atmosphere, which is conducive for employees to work effectively - Providing mechanism including constitution of a committee in accordance with law, conducting enquiry and proceeding further by following procedures are part of administrative efficiency and in event of any violation, lapses, it is to be construed that authorities failed to comply with constitutional perspectives and principles - Right to work is a basic right. Right to work must include peaceful atmosphere. When a person is employed and attending work place, it is duty of employer to develop a sense of security in minds of employees, more specifically, women employees - Sense of security alone would lead to efficiency in work place and in absence of any such security, no doubt, employees will not be in a position to work in a better manner and administration is also failing in its duty to provide a conducive atmosphere, more specifically to women employees - Administrative officials are duty bound to ensure a better atmosphere for developing efficient administration - Writ petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in Ref:BARCF/FD/2013/172 dated 28.10.2013, on the file of the 4th respondent, quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take disciplinary action as against the 5th respondent based upon the report of the 7th respondent dated 22.01.2013.

Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to furnish the enquiry report of the 9th respondent and also consequentially direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take disciplinary action as against the 5th respondent based upon the report of the 9th respondent dated 22.03.2013 as per the request of the petitioner in her representation dated 10.04.2013.

W.P.No.27068 of 2013: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent under the provisions under the Sexual Harassment of women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.)

1. The relief sought for in W.P.No.6994 of 2014 is to call for the records comprised in Ref:BARCF/FD/2013/172 dated 28.10.2013, on the file of the 4th respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take disciplinary action as against the 5th respondent based upon the report of the 7th respondent dated 22.01.2013.

1.1 In respect of W.P.No.27067 of 2013, the relief sought for is to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to furnish the enquiry report of the 9th respondent and consequentially, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take disciplinary action as against the 5th respondent based upon the report of the 9th respondent dated 22.03.2013 as per the request of the petitioner in her representation dated 10.04.2013.

1.2. In respect of W.P.No.27068 of 2013, the relief sought for is to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the 5th respondent under the provisions under the Sexual Harassment of women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

2. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are identical and hence, they are disposed of by this common order.

3. The facts in nutshell, which all are relevant for deciding the writs on hand are that the petitioner, who is an employee of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Kalpakkam, submitted a complaint on 09.01.2013 regarding a Sexual Harassment caused to her by the 5th respondent.

4. The complaint was published in the news media and the 5th respondent filed Crl.O.P No.1000 of 2013, seeking Anticipatory Bail and the interim bail was granted. Initially, a Committee to deal with the allegations of Sexual Harassment was constituted by the respondent/employer and the said committee had not conducted any enquiry. Thereafter, second committee was constituted on 16.01.2013 and the said committee conducted an enquiry by providing opportunity to the complainant as well as to the accused officer. The second committee considered the allegations and submitted its reports on 22.01.2013. The copy of the report was not communicated to the petitioner and she could able to get the copy only from the Appellate authority, more so, by submitting an application under the Right to Information Act.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contented that the way, in which, the complaint was dealt with by the respondents are not in consonance with the provisions of the Act and more so, by prolonging and protracting the issues, the authorities contributed for the dilution of the allegations raised against the 5th respondent. It is an administrative bias on the part of the respondents in dealing with such complaints and therefore, constitution of third committee is to be set aside and actions must be proceeded with on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent committee constituted on 16.01.2013.

6. The le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document