In a judgment dated August 1, 2019, the Madras High Court in the case of R. Patchaiappan vs. The Principal Secretary, Cum Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Endowment Department, and Ors. held that an inquiry conducted by an internal committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“Law”) should follow the complete procedure as envisioned under the law.
Facts: R. Patchaiappan (“Petitioner”) was working as Joint Commissioner in the Hindu Religious Endowment Department (“Employer”) at Madurai. A complaint dated July 2, 2019 was preferred by the complainant and third respondent, wherein it is alleged that, when the petitioner and complainant discharged their duties, the petitioner, using his mobile pen camera, recorded the bathing taken by the complainant and another person who also worked with the employer. Based on the above-mentioned complaint, the employer suspended the petitioner from service.
According to the petitioner, the second respondent (“IC”) directed him to appear for an inquiry without serving a copy of the complaint, supporting documents, names, and addresses of witnesses as contemplated in Rule 7(1) of the Rules, prescribed under Law (“Rules”). On receipt of the notification of the proceedings from the IC, he wrote a letter informing them that he was on medical leave until July 31, 2019 and that he was not in a position to appear before the IC. But, without serving a copy of the said complaint and connected documents, the IC elaborately issued a note informing him to appear for an inquiry on July 19, 2019. Pursuant to this notice, he sent another reply by stating that he was under medical treatment for blood pressure and giddiness, and the doctor also advised him not to travel. Therefore, he again sent a communication to the IC to follow the provisions of Rule 7(1) of the Rules.
However, the petitioner received the communication from the IC dated July 22, 2019, informing him that the inquiry on July 8 and 19, 2019 (“Inquiry”) was held, and nearly 16 witnesses submitted their statements. The IC again directed the petitioner to appear for an inquiry on August 1, 2019 and to obtain the statements of witnesses and cross-examine them. The IC did not grant him 10 working days to submit his reply. Pursuant to this, a Writ Petition had been filed by him to quash the impugned proceedings of the IC and, consequently, to set aside the statements of witnesses recorded in the inquiry as illegal since they were held behind his back and to direct the conduct of the inquiry as per the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules.
Arguments: The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, as per Rule 7(3) of the Rules, the IC ought to have granted 10 working days to submit the reply. In the present case on hand, the IC had not granted the necessary time to submit the reply. Rule 7(3) of the Rules states, as follows:
“7. Manner of inquiry into the complaint:
(3) The respondent shall file his reply to the complaint along with his list of documents and names and addresses of witnesses within a period not exceeding ten working days from the date of receipt of the documents specified under sub-rule (1).”
The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the IC would follow the procedures contemplated under the Rules and shall grant time till August 7, 2019 to the petitioner for submitting his reply in response to the notice issued on July 22, 2019.
Held: In view of the aforesaid submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2, the Court directed the IC to grant time until August 7, 2019 to the petitioner to submit his reply to the complaint. The Court also made it clear that the IC shall conduct an inquiry in accordance with the procedures as contemplated under the Rules. Further, the petitioner was also directed to cooperate with the IC for an inquiry, and with these directions, the court disposed of the Writ Petition.