Disposed

Dr Sajana P v. the Commandant

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016WP(C)/37335/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala observed that the Complaint Committee procedures are governed by the 2013 Act. Since the enquiry is pending, the court directed authorities to ensure all future notices are sent in sealed covers and no hearing details are displayed publicly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Director General of Police to ensure notices are sent in sealed covers and no hearing details are displayed publicly.

Dr Sajana P Vs the Commandant — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 37335 of 2015 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DR SAJANA P., ASST.SURGEON, MSP HOSPITAL, MALAPPURAM - 676 502.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.BHASKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE COMMANDANT MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE,

¶11

MALAPPURAM - 676 502.

¶12

2. MR.ASOKAN

¶13

THE ASST.COMMANDANT, MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE MALAPPURAM - 676 502.

¶14

3. COMPLAINT COMMITTEE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER MALABAR SPECIAL POLICE, MALAPPURAM - 676 502.

¶15

R1 & R3 BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SUJITH MATHEW JOSE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2016, ALONG WITH WP(C) NO. 4289/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 37335 of 2015 (N)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT.P-1:	TRUE SUBM	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.5.2014 ISSUED ITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-2:	TRUE RESP	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 9.5.2014 ISSUED BY THE IST ONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-3:	TRUE THE	COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER DATED 18.9.2015.
EXT.P-4:	TRUE BY T	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 26.9.2015 SUBMITTED HE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P-5:	TRUE PETIT HARA	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2.12.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE IONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT COMPLAINING SEXUAL SSMENT.
RESPONDE ------------------	NT(S)' A -----------	NNEXURES : ----------------------
ANNEXURE	R1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2015 OF THE COMMANDANT, MSP.
ANNEXURE	R1(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE	R1(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINS OF THE COMMANDANT DATED 3.6.2014.
ANNEXURE	R1(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE STATE POLICE CHIEF DATED 2.8.2014.
ANNEXURE	R1(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER DATED 4.8.2015.
ANNEXURE	R1(f)	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 8.12.2015.

¶23

//TRUE COPY//

¶24

P.S. TO JUDGE Mn

¶25

A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.

¶26

====================================

¶27

W.P.(C)Nos.37335 of 2015 & 4289 of 2016

¶28

====================================

¶29

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2016.

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Both these writ petitions are filed by a lady doctor, working as Assistant Surgeon in MSP Hospital, Malappuram. She has raised complaint of sexual harassment against Mr.Asokan, the Asst.Commandant, Malabar Special Police, Malappuram, the party

¶32

respondent in both the writ petitions.

¶33

The grievance alleged in the writ petitions is that, the committee constituted for enquiry is not adhering to the procedures contemplated under the Sexual Harrassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and redressal) Act, 2013, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, for short) and notice which circulated was in

¶34

W.P.(C)Nos.37335 of 2015 & 4289 of 2016

¶35

-:2:-

¶36

a manner disclosing the contents of notice to the public without any secrecy.

¶37

W.P.(C)No.37335 of 2015 is filed seeking a direction to the Commandant of MSP to reconstitute the Complaint Committee in terms of the provisions of the Act. W.P.(C)No.4289 of 2016 is filed seeking a direction to the Director General of Police to enquire into the atrocities committed by the party respondent against the petitioner and other women employees of MSP.

¶38

The Parliament has enacted the Act in 2013, based on the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court in Vishaka and others v. State of Rajasthan and others (AIR 1997 SC 311). The statutory rules provides the manner in which the complaint has to be addressed. Therefore, this court is of the view that no interference is required in the matter unless there is blatant violation of the Act or Rules.

¶39

It is to be noted that the complaint is yet to be concluded. However, it is in the province of the Director General of Police to look into

¶40

W.P.(C)Nos.37335 of 2015 & 4289 of 2016

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

whether the Complaint Committee is functioning in accordance with

¶43

the provisions of the Act and Rules. Certainly, it is the duty of the authorities to ensure that the notices, addressed to the petitioner, are in a sealed cover. It is made clear that hereafter no notice to the petitioner shall be addressed otherwise than in the Sealed Cover and no notice relating to hearing of the Complaint Committee shall be displayed publicly. Therefore, the Director General of Police is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner and see that the functioning of the Complaint Committee is, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this court has not expressed anything on the grievance of the petitioner.

¶44

With the above observations and direction, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶45

A. Muhamed Mustaque, Judge.

¶46

sl.

Dr Sajana P v. the Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Sajana P v. the Commandant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Assainar.M. Vs Chariman, Taluk Land Board

The District Collector, Pathanamthitta Vs K R Unnikrishnan Nair

Parambadan Nadikutty Vs State of Kerala

Varkey Mathai Vs State of Kerala

P.P.George Vs the District Collector

Geetha Vs State of Kerala