ORDER

This writ petition deals with a sexual harassment complaint. Hence, as per the provisions of section 16 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 hereinafter referred to as POSH Act, 2013, the name, address, identity of the aggrieved women is not disclosed by this Court. Registry of this Court and the Media are also directed to take note of the sensitivity of the issue and act accordingly. The fourth respondent who is the aggrieved woman is referred to as XYZ in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the constitution of the second respondent committee (Internal Complaints Committee) which has been constituted pursuant to a sexual harassment complaint dated 24.05.2022 given by the fourth respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that all actions and proceedings initiated by the first and fifth respondents pursuant to the complaint dated

24.05.2022 given by the fourth respondent are illegal and ultravires.

3. The petitioner was the Principal Commissioner of Customs, when the fourth respondent who is an IRS officer lodged a sexual harassment complaint against him on 24.05.2022.

4. The petitioner has challenged the constitution of the second respondent committee on the following grounds:

(a) The constitution of the Committee is an abuse of process of law and without jurisdiction;

(b) The sexual harassment complaint given by the fourth respondent suffers from malafides and is a counter blast to an investigation conducted by the petitioner into the role of the fourth respondent in a scam involving M/s.Heaven Engineering;

(c) Rule 7 of the Sexual Harassment of women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as POSH Rules, 2013) has been violated;

(d) The petitioner and the fourth respondent have never shared the same workplace. Hence, POSH Act, 2013 will have no application to the present case;

(e) Constitution of the Committee consists of members who are biased against the petitioner;

(f) The complaint is barred by limitation as per section 9 of the POSH Act.

5. However, the respondents question the maintainability of this writ petition and they contend as follows:

(a) The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC) vide its communication dated 27.05.2022 addressed to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Custom Zone had nominated Ms.Prachi Swaroop to head the second respondent Committee;

(b) The Principal Commissioner also issued Standing Order No.3/2022 to give effect to the CBIC's communication dated 27.05.2022. Therefore, the submission of the petitioner that the second respondent Committee was not constituted by CBIC is fallacious. The petitioner and the fourth respondent (Complainant) both fall under the umbrella of the CBIC and therefore, they did share a common workplace which comes within the definition of Section 2(o) of the POSH Act, 2013. Section 3 of the POSH Act, also makes it clear that any women who is subject to sexual harassment in any workplace may give a complaint and there is no reference to common workplace in the statute;

(c) The contentions of the petitioner are premature. The complaint is one of sexual harassment and there is no direct nexus to the complaint and the alleged scam involving M/s.Heaven Engineering. If there is no basis to the complaint and is merely a colourable device, the same will be uncovered only after the preliminary enquiry to be conducted by the Committee. Infact, if the averment of the petitioner is true, then the enquiry by the second respondent Committee would also stand to further the case of the petitioner;

(d) The allegation of bias is also baseless and is an afterthought.

Ms.Manasa Gangotri Kata was part of the standing ICC and she was not made a member specifically for the present complaint. She has been a member of the ICC since 05.05.2021. Furthermore, the alleged scam involving M/s.Heaven Engineering