IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No. 49228 of 2025 and W.M.P.No.54998 of 2025 A.Mayavadharam, Head Constable, Karaikudi South Police Station, .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The Register, Honourable State Human Rights Commission-Tamilnadu, No.143, P.S.Kumarasamy Raja Salai, Greenways Road, Chennai - 600 028.

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

3.N.Nithiya @ Vasuki, D/o.Nagarajan, C/o.R.Ponniyin Selvan, 1/73, Periya Pudupattinam, Keezhavasathachavadi, Thanjavur - 614 904. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records of the 1^st respondent in connection with the impugned order passed in SHRC Case No.5776/22/34 of 2021 dated 20.11.2025.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sreerangan ORDER (Order of the Court was made by G.Arul Murugan, J.)

This writ petition is filed assailing the order of the State Human Rights Commission dated 20.11.2025 in SHRC Case No.5776/22/34/2021, allowing the complaint thereby recommending grant of compensation and initiation of disciplinary proceedings.

2. Heard Mr.R.Sreerangan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

3. The 3^rd respondent/complainant had preferred a complaint before the Commission alleging human rights violation. As per the complaint, the complainant worked as welcome girl in functions and other celebrations. She along with other girls was employed by one Raja, the event manager. The petitioner, who worked as Writer in Sakkottai Police Station was close to the event manager and it is alleged that the petitioner, police constable, had involved in the acts of sexual harassment.

4. On 07.04.2021 at 7.00p.m., the complainant received a phone call from the personal cell phone of the petitioner, who introduced himself as Writer Mayavadharan working in Sakkottai Police Station. It was stated that one Raja had lodged a complaint against her and she has to appear in person before the police station. There were repeated calls and further, she was informed that she has to come to a place as informed by the petitioner and not to the police station. The petitioner spoke in an inappropriate manner and the complainant was threatened that false cases would be registered. Further, a demand for money and certain favours were sought, which resulted in lodging of the complaint.

5. The petitioner resisted the complaint by filing a reply controverting the allegations. In reply, the petitioner admitted that he had, infact made a phone call on 07.04.2021 to the complainant. It is claimed that only based on the complaint given by Raja, Inspector of Police had directed the petitioner to enquire into the same. Only due to which he had contacted the complainant through phone. It is also stated that Raja proposed to settle the issue, but the complainant did not cooperate. Further, after examination it was found that the place of occurrence did not fall under the jurisdiction of Sakkottai Police Station but rather falls under Somanathapuram Police Station and therefore, the said Raja was advised to seek remedy before the concerned police station.

6. On receipt of the complaint, the Commission had directed the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai, to enquire and submit a report. Based on the enquiry, a case in Crime No.183 of 2021 came to be registered against the petitioner for offences under Section 354(A)(1) (ii) of IPC, Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 4(1)(a)(b) of Information Technology Act and on completion of the investigation, final report was filed. Departmental action was also taken, based on which the petitioner was transferred to another sub-division.

7. During enquiry, the complainant had examined 2 witnesses, PW1 and PW2 and