Allowed

Roseline Amutha.a v. The Commissioner of School Education

Madras HC2 Dec 2022WP(MD)/14173/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an Office Assistant, filed a writ petition for directions to the school Correspondent to enforce the recommendations of the Internal Complaints Committee regarding an enquiry into sexual harassment allegations against the Head Master (Respondent 6).

What did the court decide?

Direct the fourth respondent to take action as per law and the committee report under Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013.

Roseline Amutha.a Vs The Commissioner of School… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.14173 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 02.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.14173 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.10133 of 2022

XXXX

... Petitioner

1.The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶12

3.The District Educational Officer, Illupur – 622 102, Pudukottai District.

¶13

4.XXXX

¶14

5.The Correspondent, XXXX.

¶15

6.J.Nicholas

¶16

... Respondents

¶17

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 4 and 5 to take

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶19

W.P(MD)No.14173 of 2022

¶20

appropriate disciplinary action against the sixth respondent forthwith as allegation of Sexual harassment at workplace is proved as per the report of the Internal Complaints Committee dated 18.01.2022.

¶21

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Amala

¶22

For Respondents : Mr.S.Shaji Bino Special Government Pleader for R.1 to R.3

¶23

Mr.S.Savarimuthu for M/s.Father Xavier Associates for R.4 & R.5

¶24

Mr.B.Jeyakumar for R.6

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

¶27

2.The writ petitioner is employed as Office Assistant in the fifth respondent School. She has levelled an allegation of sexual harassment against the sixth respondent who is the Head Master of the school. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that enquiry was already conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee. Her grievance is that the employer has not taken consequential action. That led to filing of this writ petition.

¶28

3.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the sixth respondent sought time to file counter. He also

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

2/6

¶31

W.P(MD)No.14173 of 2022

¶32

submitted that he had levelled certain allegations against the fifth respondent / Correspondent of the School and that is why the present complaint has been engineered.

¶33

4.Section 13 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 is as follows:

¶34

“13(1) On the completion of an inquiry under this Act, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall provide a report of its findings to the employer, or as the case may be, the District Officer within a period often days from the date of completion of the inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties.

¶35

(2) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is required to be taken in the matter.

¶36

(3) Where the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, arrives at the conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has been proved, it shall recommend to the employer or the District Officer, as the case may be

¶37

(i)to take action for sexual harassment as a misconduct in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

3/6

¶40

W.P(MD)No.14173 of 2022

¶41

respondent or where no such service rules have been made, in such manner as may be prescribed;

¶42

(ii) to deduct, notwithstanding anything in the service rules applicable to the respondent, from the salary or wages of the respondent such sum as it may consider appropriate to be paid to the aggrieved woman or to her legal heirs, as it may determine, in accordance with the provisions of section 15:

¶43

Provided that in case the employer is unable to make such deduction from the salary of the respondent due to his being absent from duty or cessation of employment it may direct to the respondent to pay such sum to the aggrieved woman:

¶44

Provided further that in case the respondent fails to pay the sum referred to in clause (II), the Internal Committee or, as the case may be, the Local Committee may forward the order for recovery of the sum as an arrear of land revenue to the concerned District Officer.

¶45

(4)The employer or the District Officer shall act upon the recommendation within sixty days of its receipt by him.”

¶46

5.In the case on hand, enquiry report has already been submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee on 18.01.2022. Therefore, the employer is obliged to act as per the aforesaid statutory provisions. I make it clear that this direction will not be construed as casting any cloud on the defence of the sixth

¶47

respondent. All the contentions and defences of the sixth respondent are left entirely open. Since the sixth respondent is having serious misgivings against

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶49

W.P(MD)No.14173 of 2022

¶50

the correspondent of the School, I direct the fourth respondent to take action as per law on the committee report and as per Section 13 of the aforesaid Act.

¶51

6.This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶52

02.12.2022

¶53

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No mga

¶54

Note: Registry is directed to suppress the names of the petitioner and the respondents 4 and 5.

¶55

¶56

1.The Commissioner of School Education, College Road, Chennai – 600 009.

¶57

2.The Chief Educational Officer, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.

¶58

3.The District Educational Officer, Illupur – 622 102, Pudukottai District.

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

5/6

¶61

W.P(MD)No.14173 of 2022

¶62

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

¶63

mga

¶64

W.P(MD)No.14173 of 2022 and W.M.P(MD)No.10133 of 2022

¶65

02.12.2022

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

6/6

Roseline Amutha.a v. The Commissioner of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roseline Amutha.a v. The Commissioner of School Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akbar Ali U Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mohamed Riyazudeen Vs The Director of Prosecution

Selvam Vs Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission (Tnpsc)

Dr.Sathiyan.G Vs the Bharatidasan University

Saravanan.N Vs Govt of Tamil Nadu

N.Sowmiya Vs the Director