7 days ago
HC rejects plea against disciplinary action in sexual harassment case
Madurai:
Madras high court
has denied relief to a section superintendent in the district police office in Madurai district, who challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him based on a sexual harassment complaint by two women staff.
The court directed the inquiry officer to give his findings independently, uninfluenced by the rank or designation of the persons providing evidence.
The court was hearing the petition filed by G Thirupathi Prabhakar. Two women staff lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner sexually harassed them. Based on their complaints, an internal committee was constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The committee conducted an inquiry and found that the allegations against the petitioner were prima facie made out and submitted its report to the head of the department.
Based on the committee's report and the victims' complaint, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo in 2020. The petitioner filed the present petition in 2021, challenging the charge memo and the appointment of the inquiry officer.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Thị trường có dấu hiệu suy thoái không?
IC Markets
Đăng ký
Undo
The petitioner submitted that the charge memo was issued based on the internal committee report. The committee was headed by a senior officer, as the chairperson. In the disciplinary proceedings, the chairperson was named as one of the witnesses. The inquiry officer is an officer subordinate to the chairperson. If any evidence is given by the chairperson, being the superior officer, the inquiry officer may proceed against the petitioner.
The state submitted that the petitioner sexually harassed the women staff, and it continued from 2006 onwards. The complaint was lodged along with a CD, which exposed the nature of harassment. The petitioner was already awarded a punishment of postponement of increment for two years in connection with another departmental proceeding.
Justice B Pugalendhi observed that the petitioner apprehends that the inquiry officer, being a subordinate officer to the chairperson, would be influenced by evidence. The apprehension of the petitioner is unwarranted. In any event, it is made clear that the inquiry officer has to give his findings independently, based on the available materials, uninfluenced by the rank or designation of the persons providing evidence, the judge observed and disposed of the petition.
