WP(C). Nos. 12368/2017 & 17783/2016: Seni L. v. State of Kerala & Others; Dinesh P.S. v. Regional Cancer Centre & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 12368 of 2017** ## **PETITIONER:** **SENI.L, W/O ANILKUMAR S., AGED 39 YEARS C-17, OFFICER'S QUARTETRS, LIC OF INDIA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 004.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.** - **2 THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.** - **3 THE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.** - **4 THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND CONVENER, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.** - **5 DINESH P.S. SO.PEETHAMBARAN (LATE) PHARMACIST GRADE-1, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011, RESIDING AT 'SUVA HOUSE', KATTAYIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.D.KISHORE SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) SRI.ATHUL SHAJI SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).17783/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2019 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1941** **WP(C).No. 17783 of 2016** ## **PETITIONER:** **DINESH P.S. S/O.P.K.PEETHAMBRAN (LATE), PHARMACIST GRADE-I (UNDER SUSPENSION), REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT "SUVA HOUSE', KATTTAYIKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS. SRI.D.KISHORE SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011. 2 THE DIRECTOR REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.** **3 THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND CONVENER INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.** **4 THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND CONVENE, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, MEDICAL COLLEGE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 011.** **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 3** **5 SENI L. W/O.ANILKUMAR S., C-17, OFFICER'S QUARTERS, LIC OF INDIA, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.** **BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.SHAJI (SR.) SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR SRI.ABDUL KHARIM, SC, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE SRI.ATHUL SHAJI SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI, SC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.05.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).12368/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 4** ## **JUDGMENT** WP(C)No.17783 of 2016 is filed challenging Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the Internal Complaints Committee of the first respondent as also preliminary enquiry conducted by the fourth respondent on Ext.P1 complaint without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, who was a pharmacist in the Regional Cancer Centre, challenges the proceedings initiated against him on the basis of Ext.P1 complaint made by the fifth respondent in the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act,2013. 2. WP(C)No.12368 of 2017 is filed by the alleged victim seeking the implementation of the report of the ICC as also seeking re-appointment as pharmacist. The parties and documents are being referred to as arrayed in WP(C)No.17783 of 2016. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 5** petitioners in both the writ petitions as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Regional Cancer Centre. 4. The petitioner in WP(C)No.17783 of 2016 raises allegations against the procedure of Internal Complaints Committee on the complaint submitted by the fifth respondent/petitioner in WP(C)No.12368 of 2017. It is contended that Ext.P1 complaint was submitted on 22.12.2015. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee without notice to the petitioner and a finding was entered that the petitioner and another had committed sexually harassed the fifth respondent. By Ext.P2 order dated 8.1.2016 the petitioner had been kept under suspension, pending further enquiry. Thereafter, it is stated that the petitioner's objection was submitted. The petitioner was heard by the committee on 23.3.2016 and later, Ext.P7 report had been submitted. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner ## **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 6** submits that the procedure adopted by the committee was in complete violation of the provisions of the statute as also against the principles of natural justice. It is stated that on receipt of the complaint, the committee had taken the statement of the complainant and had decided to proceed with the matter and a preliminary enquiry dated 7.1.2016 finding that the petitioner was _prima facie_ guilty of sexual harassment has been prepared and forwarded to the Director of RCC. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire procedure was behind the petitioner's back and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself. Thereafter, the petitioner was placed under suspension by Ext.P2 order and the copy of the complaint submitted by the fifth respondent was forwarded to him. It is stated that, thereafter also, the complainant as well as several other witnesses had been summoned by the Committee and these statements recorded, **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 7** behind the petitioner's back. The copies of the statements made by the complainant as well as the other witnesses were not served on the petitioner. The petitioner was issued with the notice and was heard by the Committee on 23.3.2016. Thereafter, the committee proceeded to forward Ext.P7 report implicating the petitioner and recommending disciplinary action against him. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had occasion to complaint against the conduct of the fifth respondent who was working as a pharmacist on daily wages and Ext.P3 series of complaints had been submitted before the Deputy Medical Superintendent who was the officer in charge of the pharmacy of the first respondent on 9.11.2015,25.11.2015 and 18.12.2015 respectively. It is stated that it is only in order to get back the petitioner for making the complaint that the complaint dated 22.12.2015 had been submitted by the fifth respondent against the petitioner. It **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 8** is contended that apart from giving a copy of the complaint to the petitioner, the copies of the statements recorded by Internal Complaints Commitee from the complainant or the witnesses were not served on the petitioner. The petitioner was not given a proper opportunity to defend the allegations raised against him, either in the preliminary enquiry or in the enquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee pursuant to putting the petitioner on notice. Relying on the provisions of Section 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act,2013 as well as Rule 7 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Rules 2013, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that a proper procedure involving a full opportunity to the accused officer to defend his case is clearly contemplated by the statute and the findings entered by the Internal Complaints Committee without following such due procedure is **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 9** completely untenable. A decision of this Court in _**Sibu L.S v.Air India Ltd., New Delhi and Others [2016(2)KHC 569]**_ is relied on to contend that the enquiry to be held in terms of sections 11 and 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 is not a preliminary enquiry but a full fledged enquiry. It is contended that proper enquiry to ascertain whether the sexual harassment has occurred has to be conducted with full chance to the accused officer to defend himself. Relying on the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules, it is contended that what is contemplated is an enquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules applicable and as such, a full fledged enquiry as to whether such conduct has occurred has to be conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee and it is only after conducting of such enquiry that a finding that the petitioner was guilty of the misconduct alleged as against him can be reached. It is ## **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 10** therefore contended that the procedure adopted by the Internal Complaints Committee is at variance to the statutory provisions as also the principles of natural justice and as such, Ext.P7 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and a proper opportunity is to be given to the petitioner to defend his case and adduce evidence in support of his contentions. 8. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record in WP(C)17783 of 2016 by the employer, Regional Cancer Centre. It is contended therein that the Internal Complaints Committee had considered the complaint raised by the fifth respondent. It is stated that the complaint received from the fifth respondent dated 22.12.2015 has been referred to the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal)Act, 2013. A meeting of the Internal Complaints Committee was held on 31.12.2015 and the complainant was **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 11** examined in detail. It is stated that the fifth respondent was heard by women members of the committee and her statement was recorded which is produced as Ext.R1(C). The statements of other collegues of the fifth respondent i.e, Smt.Ganga.P., Smt.Broosha Beevi, Smt.Priya P.R. and Smt.Krishnapriya.U were also taken and a preliminary report has been submitted as Ext.R1(F) finding that there is _prima facie_ material to hold that sexual harassment at work place had occurred. It is stated that based on the preliminary enquiry report, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry. A written reply was also sought for and obtained from the petitioner. It is further stated that the written statement of defence of the petitioner was obtained and the petitioner was heard by the Internal Complaints Committee on 23.3.2016 and his statement was recorded. It is further stated that eleven employees had been examined by the Internal Complaints Committee and **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 12** the internal complaints committee completed the enquiry and due to difference of opinion the committee submitted two reports, one by three members and one by two members. It is stated that the contentions of the petitioner were also considered and the petitioner was heard by the Internal Complaints Committee. It is therefore contended that the procedure adopted by the committee is in consonance with the principles of natural justice and further action against the petitioner is liable to be taken in accordance with the finding of the Committee. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would contend that the fifth respondent had been forced to resign from service on account of the sexual harassment meted out her by the petitioner and others. It is contended that a detailed complaint had been preferred by her before the respondents which had been placed before the Internal Complaints Committee. She was summoned by the committee and had been **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 13** examined by the women members of the committee dated 31.12.2015. It is contended that thereafter, the fifth respondent had been put on notice and a detailed enquiry had been conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee with notice to the fifth respondent as well as the petitioner. It is stated that in the enquiry conducted, the writ petitioner is found guilty of sexual harassment as defined in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act,2013 and that such action is liable to be proceeded as against the writ petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Act. The fifth respondent therefore seeks further action against the petitioner in terms of the Act and the Rules. It is contended that the fifth respondent is also entitled to re- appointment since she has been forced to resign from service only due to the sexual harassment meted out to her by the writ petitioner. 10. I have considered the contentions **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 14** advanced on either side. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act,2013 specifically provides the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee by every employer. The complaint preferred by any aggrieved women with regard to sexual harassment is to be placed before the Internal Complaints Committee and the Internal Complaints Committee has to deal with the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Committee can attempt a conciliation and if a settlement is arrived at, no further enquiry shall be conducted by the committee. However, in cases where no settlement is arrived at, Section 11 provides that the committee shall proceed to make enquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules applicable to the respondents and where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed. The Committee shall also forward the complaint to the police for registering a case under Section 509 of IPC. **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 15** On completion of the enquiry, a report is to be submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee and where the committee arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondents has been proved, they shall recommend to take action against the delinquent as a misconduct. **==> picture [356 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** **==> picture [297 x 34] intentionally omitted <==** (1) Subject to the provisions of section 11, at the time of filing the complaint, the complainant shall submit to the Complaints Committee, six copies of the complaint along with supporting documents and the names and addresses of the witnesses. (2) On receipt of the complaint, the Complaints Committee shall send one of the copies received from the aggrieved woman under sub-rule(1) to the respondent within a period of seven working days. (3) The respondent shall file his reply to the complaints along with his list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses, within a period not exceeding ten working days **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 16** from the date of receipt of the documents specified under subrule(1). (4) The Complaints Committee shall make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the principles of natural justice. (5) The Complaints Committee shall have the right to terminate the inquiry proceedings or to give an _exparte_ decision on the complaint, if the complainant or respondent fails, within sufficient cause to present herself or himself for three consecutive hearings convened by the Chairperson or President Officer, as the case may be: Provided that such termination or _ex-parte_ order may not be passed without giving a notice in writing, fifteen days in advance, to the party concerned. (6) The parties shall not be allowed to bring in any legal practitioner to represent them in their case at any stage of the proceedings before the Complaints Committee. (7) In conducting the inquiry, a minimum of three Members of the Complaints Committee including the ## **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 17** President Officer or the Chairperson, as the case may be, shall be present.'' 12. It is therefore clear that, what is contemplated by the act in the Rules is a full fledged enquiry to come to the conclusion whether the allegation raised as regards sexual harassment is a fact or not. This Court in _**Sibu**_ _**L.S. v. Air India Ltd., New Delhi and Others**_ _**[ 2016(2) KHC 569]**_ has clearly held that a reading of sections 11 and 13 of the Act would make it clear that what is contemplated is not a preliminary enquiry, but a fulfledged enquiry and a finding as to whether a misconduct has been committed. It is stated that Section 13(3) (i) makes it clear that the enquiry is to be conducted by the ICC in the same manner as a disciplinary proceedings as provided in the relevant Rules. Thus when the enquiry by the ICC is concluded what is left to the discretion of the employer is to take action in accordance ## **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 18** with the Service Rules for the proven misconduct. It has been held that the choice left to the employer is to impose a penalty in accordance with the Service Rules on the proven misconduct. 13. The committee therefore is to act as a fact finding committee and has to enter a finding as to whether the allegations are substantiated or not. The language of Section 11 makes it clear that in the said exercise, the enquiry into the complaint shall be in accordance with the provisions of Service Rules applicable. It is therefore clear that, what is contemplated is a full fledged enquiry with proper notice to the accused officer as well and a concrete finding as to whether sexual harassment at work place has occurred or not. As held by this Court, it cannot be left to the employer in the disciplinary proceedings to take a different view in this matter. Once finding of sexual harassment having occurred in the work place is **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 19** entered into by the Internal Complaints Committee after due notice, the said finding is unassailable even in the disciplinary proceedings. 14. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the proceedings adopted by the Internal Complaints Committee in coming to the conclusion that the allegation of the sexual harassment stands proved was completely unjustified. Though the petitioner had been put on notice and his statement was recorded on 23.3.2016 by the committee. It is clear from the pleadings placed on record, that the material available against the petitioner including the statement recorded from the complainant and witnesses was not made available to the petitioner. The petitioner had not been given an opportunity to substantiate his innocence. 15. In the above view of the matter, Ext.P7 as well as the preliminary enquiry report of the Internal Complaints Committee stands vitiated by **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 20** non compliance with the principles of natural justice. The preliminary enquiry report as well as Ext.P7 report are set aside. The Internal Complaints Committee shall proceed to consider Ext.P3 explanation submitted by the petitioner and shall proceed to enquire into the complaint in accordance with law and in accordance with Service Rules governing the organisation and enter a finding on Ext.P1 complaint after complying with all due procedure and after giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to defend his case. Appropriate enquiry report shall be submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy this judgment. Writ petitions are ordered accordingly. ## **SD/-** ## **ANU SIVARAMAN** ## **JUDGE** ACM / 22.5.2019 **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 21** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12368/2017** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ICC WHICH IS OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT INFORMATION ACT FROM REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE** **EXHIBIT P2** **TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 09.12.2016** **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 22** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17783/2016** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.2226/ADMN.IV/2015/RCC DATED 31.12.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.2226/ADMN.IV/2016/RCC DATED 08.01.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED 09.01.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DAWTED 13.01.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.2226/ADMN.IV/2016/RCC DATED 11.03.2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2226/ADMN.IV/2016/RCC DATED 28.5.2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT OF THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE FURNISHED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ON 15.7.2016.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.12.2016 OF THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION. (A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE REFER CHARGE IN CRIME 596/2016 OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION IN IA.1/2019).** ## **RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R1 A** COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY ONE SRI.S.REJIN BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 9.10.2014. **EXHIBIT R1 B** COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. **WP(C).Nos.12368/2017 & 17783/16 23** **EXHIBIT R1 C** COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 22.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. **EXHIBIT R1 D** COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 21.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE LADY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. **EXHIBIT R1 E** COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 2.1.2016 SUBMITTED BY SMT.P.GANGA BEFORE THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE. **EXHIBIT R1 F** COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, MEMBERS AND CONVENER BEFORE THE INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE. **EXHIBIT R1 G** COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ONE BY DR.THARA SOMANATHAN, DR.RAMADAS K., AND SMT.SREELEKA R. ON 28.5.2016 AND ANOTHER BY DR.BISMI GOPALAKRISHNAN AND SRI.V.ANIL KUMAR, SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. **EXHIBIT R1 H** COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.22226/ADMNIV/2016/RCC DATED 28.5.2016 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.