Disposed

R.Magdaline Rani v. Geological Survey of India

Madras HC3 Dec 2024WP/12388/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged CAT's dismissal of her application against an Internal Complaints Committee report on her sexual harassment complaint. The High Court held no final decision had been taken on the report; directed the competent authority to consider her representation with the report, conduct any further inquiry at Chennai, pass final orders, and left her free to appeal under Section 18(1).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed: representation to be considered by competent authority with ICC report, further proceedings at Chennai, final orders to be passed and communicated; appeal under S.18(1) availab

R.Magdaline Rani Vs Geological Survey of India — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2025:MHC:47

¶2

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 03.12.2024

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶9

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

R.Magdaline Rani

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Geological Survey of India, Rep. by its Director General, 27, J.L.N. Road, Kolkata – 700 016.

¶14

2.Additional Director General, Geological Survey of India, Southern Regional Office, GSI Complex, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad – 500 068.

¶15

3.The Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Su-TNP, Inner Ring Road, Industrial Estate near Kathipara, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶16

4.Dr.S.Raju,

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 8

¶18

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

¶19

5.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai 600 002. ... Respondents

¶20

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 17.03.2023 passed by 5^th respondent in O.A.No.281 of 2019 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to constitute fresh Internal Complaints Committee to inquire into the complaint submitted by the petitioner dated 09.11.2017.

¶21

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajesh Kumar For R1 to R4 : Mrs.M.E.Sarashwathy Senior Panel Counsel For R5 : Tribunal

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

[Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]

¶24

The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the order dated 17^th

¶25

March, 2023 passed in O.A.No.281 of 2019.

¶26

The petitioner is working as Store Keeper at the Zoological Survey

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8

¶28

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

¶29

of India, Chennai, since 30.10.2000. She made a complaint to the 1^st respondent on 09.11.2017 against the 4^th respondent viz., Dr.S.Raju, who is the then Deputy Director General (presently retired from service). The complaint is alleged sexual harassment at work place under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013. The original application was filed challenging the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee on 14.12.2018. Since the Tribunal dismissed the original application, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry was conducted at Kolkata, where the 4^th respondent served as Director General during the relevant point of time. Therefore, there is no possibility of conducting a fair inquiry. Thus, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the preliminary inquiry report dated 14.12.2018.

¶31

This Court is of the view that all the witnesses reside in Chennai and the complaint was filed by the petitioner in Chennai. Thus, there is no reason to conduct inquiry in Kolkata, where the 4^th respondent was holding the post of Director General during the relevant point of time.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8

¶33

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

¶34

Although the 4^th respondent has since retired from service upon reaching the age of superannuation, the Tribunal considered the petitioner's grounds and dismissed the original application. The dismissal was based on the ground that an appeal against the preliminary inquiry report lies under Section 18(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013.

¶35

The Central Administrative Tribunal, in the impugned order made a finding that the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 09.11.2017, was investigated by the Internal Complaints Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of Sexual Harassment Act. The Committee's formation adhered to the Act's, Rules and a Circular issued by the Head of the Department. The report of the Internal Complaints Committee dated 26.11.2018 was served to the petitioner. The Tribunal found that the Committee was constituted in accordance with Section 4 of the Act and there is no infirmity.

¶36

The petitioner admittedly failed to exhaust the appellate remedy contemplated under the Act. No further action has been recommended based

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8

¶38

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

¶39

on the report of the Internal Complaints Committee under the Act.

¶40

In this context, the Tribunal held that the representation of petitioner shall be deemed to be an appeal under Section 18(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act.

¶41

Section 18(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013, contemplates an appeal with reference to the report submitted under Section 13 of the Act. No final decision has been taken by the competent authorities based on the report submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee. The petitioner admittedly submitted a representation and therefore, the competent authority has to consider the said representation along with the report for taking a final decision. After passing an order, the petitioner if aggrieved may prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

¶42

In this context, if examination of additional witnesses or

¶43

scrutinisation of documents is required, all such further inquiry is to be conducted at Chennai. In such circumstances, the petitioner may be provided

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 8

¶45

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

¶46

with an opportunity to furnish additional documents or evidences, if any.

¶47

Since final decision has not been taken by the competent authority, the representation submitted by the petitioner is directed to be considered and all further proceedings under the Act is to be taken at Chennai. After completing the procedures as contemplated under the Act, the respondents have to pass final orders, which is to be communicated to the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved, thereafter she may prefer an appeal under Section 18(1) of the Act.

¶48

With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶49

No costs.

¶50

[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 03.12.2024 (1/2)

¶51

Index : Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes

¶52

Jeni

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 8

¶54

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

¶55

¶56

1.The Director General, Geological Survey of India, 27, J.L.N. Road, Kolkata – 700 016.

¶57

2.The Additional Director General, Geological Survey of India, Southern Regional Office, GSI Complex, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad – 500 068.

¶58

3.The Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Su-TNP, Inner Ring Road, Industrial Estate near Kathipara, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.

¶59

4.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai 600 002.

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 8

¶61

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

¶62

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

¶63

Jeni

¶64

W.P.No.12388 of 2023

¶65

03.12.2024 (1/2)

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8

R.Magdaline Rani v. Geological Survey of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Magdaline Rani v. Geological Survey of India

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

Marudhamuthu Vs the Superintendent of Police

Uttam Bir Singh Bedi, Vs Union of India

P.Wilson, Vs Union of India

A.Chandrasekaran Vs Union of India - Rep. by

R.Magdaline Rani Vs Geolgoical survey of India

K.Sethuraman, Vs the Competent Authority