Madras High Court
Sushma Alaguvadival vs The Union Of India on 6 December, 2021
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.6995 of 2014, 27067 & 27068 of 2013
and
M.P.Nos.2 of 2014, 1 and 2 of 2013
W.P.No.6995 of 2014
Sushma Alaguvadival,
W/o Alaguvadival,
101, Poornima Aamaipaakam,
Thirukazhukundram Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary,
Department of Atomic Energy,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman,
Atomic Energy Commission,
Mumbai- 400 001.
3. The Director,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai.
4.The Director,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Facility,
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
Department of Atomic Energy,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District.
5. S.Kumar
6.The Chairperson,
Standing Complaints Committee,
Bhabha Atomatic Research Centre Facility,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District.
7.The Chairperson,
Women Cell,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Facility,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records
comprised in Ref:BARCF/FD/2013/172 dated 28.10.2013, on the file of the
4th respondent, quash the same and consequentially direct the respondents 1
to 4 to take disciplinary action as against the 5th respondent based upon the
report of the 7th respondent dated 22.01.2013.
W.P.No.27067 of 2013
Sushma Alaguvadival,
W/o Alaguvadival,
101, Poornima Aamaipaakam,
Thirukazhukundram Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. ... Petitioner
Vs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
1.The Union of India,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Department of Atomic Energy,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman,
Atomic Energy Commission,
Mumbai- 400 001.
3. The Director,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai.
4.The Director,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Facility,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District.
5. S.Kumar
6.K.V.Ravi
7.Mrs.H.K.Parvathy
8.Mr.P.Soundraraj
9.The Chairperson,
Women Cell,
Bhabha Atomatic Research Centre Facility,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District. ...Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 4 to
furnish the enquiry report of the 9th respondent and also consequentially
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take disciplinary action as against the 5 th
respondent based upon the report of the 9th respondent dated 22.03.2013 as
per the request of the petitioner in her representation dated 10.04.2013.
W.P.No.27068 of 2013
Sushma Alaguvadival,
W/o Alaguvadival,
101, Poornima Aamaipaakam,
Thirukazhukundram Taluk,
Kancheepuram District. ... Petitioner
Vs
1.The Union of India,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Department of Atomic Energy,
New Delhi.
2. The Chairman,
Atomic Energy Commission,
Mumbai- 400 001.
3. The Director,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai.
4.The Director,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Facility,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District.
5. S.Kumar
6.K.V.Ravi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
7.Mrs.H.K.Parvathy
8.Mr.P.Soundraraj
9.The Chairperson,
Women Cell,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Facility,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District. ...Respondents
PRAYER in W.P.No.27068 of 2013 : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the
respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the 5 th respondent under the
provisions under the Sexual Harassment of women at workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
W.P.No.6995 of 2014:
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharanidharan
For Respondents :Mr.K.Venkataswamy Babu
Senior Panel Counsel
[For R1 to R4, R6 and R7]
Mr.K.Thilagaraj [For R5]
W.P.Nos.27067 & 27068 of 2013:
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharanidharan
[In both Wps]
For Respondents :Mr.K.Venkataswamy Babu
[In both Wps] Senior Panel Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
[For R1 to R4 and R9]
Mr.K.Thilagaraj [For R5]
No Appearance [For R6 to R8]
COMMON ORDER
The relief sought for in W.P.No.6994 of 2014 is to call for the records
comprised in Ref:BARCF/FD/2013/172 dated 28.10.2013, on the file of the
4th respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to
take disciplinary action as against the 5th respondent based upon the report
of the 7th respondent dated 22.01.2013.
1.1 In respect of W.P.No.27067 of 2013, the relief sought for is to
direct the respondents 1 to 4 to furnish the enquiry report of the 9 th
respondent and consequentially, to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take
disciplinary action as against the 5th respondent based upon the report of the
9th respondent dated 22.03.2013 as per the request of the petitioner in her
representation dated 10.04.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
1.2. In respect of W.P.No.27068 of 2013, the relief sought for is to
direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take action against the 5 th respondent under
the provisions under the Sexual Harassment of women at workplace
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
2. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are identical and
hence, they are disposed of by this common order.
3. The facts in nutshell, which all are relevant for deciding the writs
on hand are that the petitioner, who is an employee of Bhabha Atomic
Research Centre, Kalpakkam, submitted a complaint on 09.01.2013
regarding a Sexual Harassment caused to her by the 5th respondent.
4. The complaint was published in the news media and the 5th
respondent filed Crl.O.P No.1000 of 2013, seeking Anticipatory Bail and the
interim bail was granted. Initially, a Committee to deal with the allegations
of Sexual Harassment was constituted by the respondent / employer and the
said committee had not conducted any enquiry. Thereafter, second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
committee was constituted on 16.01.2013 and the said committee conducted
an enquiry by providing opportunity to the complainant as well as to the
accused officer. The second committee considered the allegations and
submitted its reports on 22.01.2013. The copy of the report was not
communicated to the petitioner and she could able to get the copy only from
the Appellate authority, more so, by submitting an application under the
Right to Information Act.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contented that
the way, in which, the complaint was dealt with by the respondents are not
in consonance with the provisions of the Act and more so, by prolonging and
protracting the issues, the authorities contributed for the dilution of the
allegations raised against the 5th respondent. It is an administrative bias on
the part of the respondents in dealing with such complaints and therefore,
constitution of third committee is to be set aside and actions must be
proceeded with on the report submitted by the 2nd respondent committee
constituted on 16.01.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the petitioner
produced all relevant evidences to establish the allegations and the
allegations were proved beyond any doubt before the committee constituted.
The committee also considered the evidences and made a finding, holding
that the allegations against the 5th respondent are held proved. Thus, the
authorities ought to have initiated action by following the provisions of the
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013. Instead, they have constituted a third Committee,
which caused greater injustice to the petitioner by not dealing with the
complaint in an appropriate manner.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India,
representing the Respondents 1 to 4, 6 and 7, contended that no doubt, the
first committee had not initiated action to conduct enquiry and the second
committee conducted enquiry and submitted a report. However, on receipt of
the notification from the Government of India, Department of Atomic
Energy, the 4th respondent had to constitute a fresh committee as the
committee constituted must be in accordance with Section 4 of the Sexual
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
Harassment Act. In view of the fact that the second committee constituted
was not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, it necessitated the 4 th
respondent to constitute the fresh committee and therefore, there is no
infirmity as such.
8. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the official respondents reiterated that there was no official bias
and the proceedings were conducted by providing opportunity to all the
parties and thus, the allegations raised against the Department are vague and
not supported with any evidences. Thus, the writ petition is to be rejected.
9. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Sexual Harassment
Act emanated from the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in
Vishakas' case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in unequivocal terms
held that the protection of women in work place is of paramount importance
and swift actions by following the procedures are imminent. Thus, any
lapses in this regard on the part of the administration must also be viewed
seriously. It is not as if on receipt of compliant, an employer can act in a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
casual manner as this kind of sexual allegations in work place causes greater
concern in the working atmosphere and further, creates lot of trouble
amongst the women employees, who all are working in various institutions.
In the event of prolongation or inaction against such allegations, the faith on
the system will be questioned and furthermore, it will provide a wrong
message to the accused persons.
10. This Court is of the considered opinion that such allegations are
very frequently noticed in Government Departments, Public Institutions etc.,
However, an amount of sensitivity shown by the administration is of
paramount importance and in the event of not showing any sensitivity,
undoubtedly, we are not dealing with the issues in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and further, committing an act of dereliction, which is
certainly a misconduct or an offence. Thus, while dealing with such
allegations, the authorities are expected to be more vigilant and cautious and
any lapses in this regard must be viewed seriously. Always such lapses will
be misconstrued as if the authorities have acted in support of the accused
persons. When such sexual harassment allegations are person related, any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
inaction or delayed action will be a ground to raise allegation against the
administration itself as there is a likelihood of bias in many occasions. In
order to avoid all such conflicts, administrative bias, etc., the authorities
must act swiftly on receipt of any such complaint from any of the employee.
Any belated action must be accountable and lapses in constitution of a
committee or otherwise must also be treated as dereliction of duty.
11. In the present case, no doubt, the allegations against the 5th
respondent are serious. The instances narrated would reveal that the
petitioner could able to establish the allegations against the 5th respondent as
the instances were brought to the notice of the husband of the petitioner by
her. All such evidences were also produced by the complainant before the
second committee constituted, who in turn, gone into the nature of evidences
and accordingly, made a finding, holding that the allegations against the 5th
respondent are held proved.
12. This being the factum, there is no reason whatsoever to constitute
a third committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
13. However, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the second
committee constituted was not in consonance with the provisions of Section
4 of the Sexual Harassment Act and in the event of proceeding based on the
report, there is a likelihood of setting aside the report of the committee and
under those circumstances, the authorities thought fit to constitute the
committee in accordance with the provisions of the Act. This reason
necessarily to be considered, in view of the fact that if at all the report of the
second committee is acted upon, it will pave way for the accused person to
challenge the said report merely on the ground that the enquiry was
conducted by an incompetent committee constituted in violation of Section 4
of the Sexual Harassment Act. In order to avoid such lapses, new committee
is necessarily to be constituted. However, the writ petition is kept pending
for about 6 years, which is also unfortunate as such writ petitions relating to
complaints of Sexual Harassment must be moved at the earliest possible
even for final hearing.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
14. Under these circumstances, this Court is of an opinion that efflux
of time caused mental agony to the complainant. Loss of time naturally
would result in loss of trust on the system. Therefore, it is the responsibility
of all concerned to ensure that the complaints of Sexual harassment are dealt
in accordance with the provisions of the Act and within a reasonable period
of time. Time becomes essence, in view of the fact that the other employees
working in the institutions also must be issued with a stern message that
such kind of allegations will be viewed seriously by the administration. In
the absence of no result for long time, the said lapses would encourage such
offenders, who all are tempted to commit offences relating to Sexual
Harassment. All these aspects are very much important and must be part of
administrative efficiency. In an efficient administration, if such allegations
are addressed properly, then every employee will get better working
atmosphere to perform their duties and responsibilities in an efficient
manner.
15. One has to imagine, an employee, who suffered such harassments
from the hands of the superiors, no one can expect that such employee will
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
be in a position to perform her duties efficiently and effectively. If so, is it
not the duty of the employer to ensure an atmosphere, which is conducive
for the employees to work effectively. Certainly, it is the duty of the
employers to ensure an atmosphere for the purpose of improving the
efficiency level in public administration. Efficiency in public administration
is the constitutional mandate. Thus, providing mechanism including
constitution of a committee in accordance with law, conducting enquiry and
proceeding further by following the procedures are part of the administrative
efficiency and therefore, in the event of any violation, lapses, it is to be
construed that the authorities failed to comply with the constitutional
perspectives and principles.
16. Right to work is a basic right. Right to work must include peaceful
atmosphere. When a person is employed and attending the work place, it is
the duty of the employer to develop a sense of security in the minds of
employees, more specifically, women employees. Sense of security alone
would lead to efficiency in work place and in the absence of any such
security, no doubt, the employees will not be in a position to work in a better
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
manner and the administration is also failing in its duty to provide a
conducive atmosphere, more specifically to the women employees. Thus, the
administrative officials are duty bound to ensure a better atmosphere for
developing efficient administration.
17. As far as the writ petitions on hand are concerned, the petitioner
underwent sufferings, more specifically, the matters are kept pending for
about 7 ½ years and even now, it has not reached finality. Under these
circumstances, this Court has no option, but to direct the official respondents
to constitute a committee in a time bound manner and complete the same as
expeditiously as possible in order to avoid further lapses or defects in the
enquiry and accordingly, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:
1) The order impugned passed by the 4th respondent in
proceedings in Ref:BARCF/FD/2013/172 dated 28.10.2013 is
quashed.
2) The 4th respondent is directed to constitute a
Committee in accordance with Section 4 of the Sexual
Harassment of Women at workplace (Prevention, Prohibition
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
and Redressal) Act, 2013, within a period of one week from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order.
3) It is made clear that the NGO to be appointed as the
member of the Committee, must be an outsider, preferably
outside from Kalpakkam in the present case.
4) The Committee to be constituted by the 4th respondent
shall conduct the enquiry, taking note of the evidences already
considered by the second committee, so also the report
submitted and proceed further by providing opportunity to all
the parties concerned. If necessary, take further evidences or
otherwise, conclude the enquiry and submit a final report within
a period of six (6) weeks from the date of the receipt of a copy
of this order.
5) On receipt of the enquiry reports, the respondents 1 to
4, 6 and 7 are directed to initiate all further actions both under
the Criminal Law and under the Service Law as the case may be
as applicable and as expeditiously as possible.
18. With these directions, all the writ petitions stand allowed. No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
06.12.2021
Internet:Yes
Index : Yes
Speaking order:Yes
kak
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Department of Atomic Energy,
New Delhi.
2.The Chairman,
Atomic Energy Commission,
Mumbai- 400 001.
3.The Director,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,
Mumbai.
4.The Director,
Department of Atomic Energy,
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Facility,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District.
5 The Chairperson,
Standing Complaints Committee,
Bhabha Atomatic Research Centre Facility,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District.
6.The Chairperson,
Women Cell,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre Facility,
Kalpakkam, Kancheepuram District.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.6995 of 2014, 27067 and 27068 of 2013
kak
W.P.Nos.6995 of 2014,
27067 & 27068 of 2013
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
