2022 Supreme(Mad) 3501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
S. Ravi Selvan - Appellant
Versus
Central Board of Indirect Taxes & customs, Represented by the Chairman, New Delhi & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 17798 of 2022 & W.M.P. No. 17093 of 2022 & 17928 of 2022
Decided On : 09-09-2022

The constitution and conduct of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 fall within the definition of "service matters" under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and thus, the Central Administrative Tribunal is the appropriate forum to adjudicate grievances related to the ICC.

Headnote:

SEXUAL HARASSMENT - POSH ACT - CONSTITUTION OF INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE - JURISDICTION - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT - SERVICE MATTERS - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Principal Commissioner of Customs, challenged the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) formed to investigate a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by a female IRS officer. He alleged that the ICC was not constituted in accordance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), that the complaint was false and malicious, and that the ICC members were biased against him. The respondents, including the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC), argued that the ICC was properly constituted, that the complaint was within the scope of the POSH Act, and that the petitioner's allegations were baseless.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It found that the POSH Act and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 provide adequate safeguards for both the complainant and the respondent in cases of sexual harassment. The court also held that the constitution and conduct of the ICC fell within the definition of "service matters" under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and thus, the Central Administrative Tribunal was the appropriate forum to adjudicate the petitioner's grievances. The court further held that the petitioner's allegations of bias and malafides against the ICC members were not supported by any undisputed evidence and that the complaint could not be dismissed as vague or false without an inquiry.

Issues: 1. Whether the constitution of the ICC was in accordance with the POSH Act and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964? 2. Whether the complaint was within the scope of the POSH Act? 3. Whether the ICC members were biased against the petitioner? 4. Whether the writ petition was maintainable in light of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the ICC was properly constituted in accordance with the POSH Act and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. It noted that the ICC consisted of the required number of members, including a Presiding Officer who was a woman employed at a senior level, and that the members were nominated by the employer, as required by the Act. 2. The court held that the complaint was within the scope of the POSH Act. It found that the complaint alleged unwelcome physical, verbal, and non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature, which fell within the definition of "sexual harassment" under the Act. 3. The court held that the petitioner's allegations of bias and malafides against the ICC members were not supported by any undisputed evidence. It noted that the petitioner had not provided any specific instances of bias or malafides, and that the mere fact that some of the ICC members were associated with the same department as the complainant did not establish bias. 4. The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in light of the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It found that the petitioner's grievances fell within the definition of "service matters" under the Act, and thus, the Central Administrative Tribunal was the appropriate forum to adjudicate the petitioner's claims.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it was not maintainable. It also directed the petitioner to participate in the inquiry proceedings conducted by the ICC.