The main legal point established is that the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee must be a higher level woman officer in accordance with Section 4(2)(a) of the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace Act, 2013.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner through the 6th respondent in the name of Vishaka Committee violating the provisions mandated in Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2013, The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 and The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Rules, 2013 considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2022, in the nature and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.)

1. The Writ of Mandamus has been filed seeking a direction to direct the 3rd respondent to drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner through the 6th respondent-Internal Complaints Committee in the name of Vishaka Committee violating the provisions mandated in the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2013, the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for brevity) and the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace Rules, 2013 by considering the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 24.03.2022.

2. The petitioner is working as incharge Medical Officer, Ganapathipuram Primary Health Centre, Kanyakumari District. Pursuant to the complaint dated 30.03.2019 in C.C.No.20/2020, on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, an enquiry was conducted. The complaint was given by one Esakkiyammal against five officers. The allegation in the complaint is regarding birth of still born baby and removal of uterus at Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital, Kanyakumari District in which the petitioner claims that his role was very much limited. The departmental enquiry was initiated based on the complaint of Smt.Esakkiyammal dated 16.12.2019 and an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 24.12.2019 regarding the treatment provided to Mrs.Abina, daughter of Smt.Esakkiyammal. The enquiry proceedings were closed by the Department, as there is no basis for such allegations.

3. The petitioner states that a fresh complaint was given by Mrs.Abina to the 3rd respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that such a complaint is motivated and given at the instance of the Deputy Director of Health Services. Based on the allegations of sexual harassment in the complaint given by Mrs.Abina, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted and inquiry is proposed to be conducted. Challenging the said action, the present writ petition is filed seeking to drop all further proceedings.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:-

(i) The copies of the complaint and other supportive documents were not furnished to the writ petitioner and therefore, the very inquiry to be conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee is to be declared as invalid;

(ii) The constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee is improper and not in accordance with Section 4 of the Act;

(iii) Based on the complaint given by the mother of Mrs.Abina, departmental enquiry was conducted and all further actions were dropped. Therefore, the inquiry proposed to be conducted through Internal Complaints Committee is a de novo enquiry which is impermissible; and

(iv) Such an inquiry through the Internal Complaints Committee is in violation of the Service Rules.

5. Raising the above four grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the entire action of constitution of Internal Complaints Committee under the Act is untenable, as the Department has already dropped all further actions, pursuant to the enquiry conducted.

6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Nagaram Balakrishna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in CDJ 2021 APHC 444. T