BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserving the Order Date of Pronouncing the Order

29.10.2025 12.12.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

W.P.(MD) No.23926 of 2025

and

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.18784, 18786 & 18787 of 2025

Mr.C.Selvaraj ... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Director General of Police,

Armed Reserve,

Kilpauk, Chennai - 10.

2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police,

Armed Reserve, Chennai.

3.The Commandant,

TSP VIII Battalion,

New Delhi.

4.The Deputy Commandant/Enquiry Officer,

TSP 6 Battalion,

Madurai – 14. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue

a writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.367/Thu.Tha/Tha/Si.Ka.6 Ani/2025, dated 29.08.2025 on the file of the fourth respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently for a direction, directing the fourth respondent to defer the enquiry against the petitioner till the conclusion of the re-enquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee/Vishaka Committee in pursuance to the Order passed by the third respondent in C.No.E3/2965/2024, dated 24.10.2024 and the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent in C.No.E3/643-1/2024, dated 20.11.2024 and pass such further other orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.Veerakathiravan AAG assisted by Mr.F.Deepak, Special Government Pleader

O R D E R

This Writ Petition had been filed to quash the impugned order dated

29.08.2025 on the file of the fourth respondent as illegal and consequently to direct the fourth respondent to defer the enquiry against the petitioner till the conclusion of the re-enquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee/Vishaka Committee in pursuance to the Order passed by the third respondent, dated

24.10.2024 and the proceedings of the 3^rd respondent, dated 20.11.2024

2. Heard Mr.A.Balaji, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Veerakathiravan learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a complaint had been filed against the petitioner, who had been working as an Inspector with the third respondent Battalion, alleging vexatious claim of sexual harassment. An Internal Complaints Committee was formed for conducting an enquiry and it had also submitted an enquiry report. The respondents noting that the Committee had not been constituted as per the Visahaka guidelines and was in contravention with Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as 'POSH Act'), had reconstituted a committee to be headed by a Woman Officer holding the rank of Assistant Commandant-II. The complainant had circulated a letter indicating that she had instituted a Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court against the order of re-enquiry and sought for an exemption to participate in the same. However, the third respondent forwarded the enquiry report of the earlier Committee upon which the petitioner had also been called upon to appear for enquiry by issuance to the impugned proceedings.

4. He would submit that the earlier Internal Complaints Committee had been headed by a male member and hence, the same is in contravention of Section 4 of the POSH Act and therefore, the disciplinary proceedings that had been initiated based upon the findings of the said void Committee, cannot be allowed to proceed with. He would submit that till a fresh enquiry report is submitted by the newly constituted Committed which has been made in accordance with POSH Act, no disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner on the said allegation and therefore, he prays this Court indulgence to the order impugned herein.

5. Countering his arguments, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that even though the petitioner participated