Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 57 (MAD)

S. Murugan Joint Director v. State of Tamil Nadu

2019-01-03

ANITA SUMANTH, VINEET KOTHARI

body2019
ORDER : ANITA SUMANTH, J. 1. This order is passed in common in regard to the above five (5) writ petitions. 2. W.P.No.22533 of 2018 is styled as a writ petition filed in public interest and seeks a writ of madamus directing respondents 2 to 4, being the Secretaries of the Departments of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Labour and Employment, and Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme respectively, to issue suitable instructions to all Departments, Organizations, undertakings, establishments, enterprises, institutions, branches or units established, owned, controlled or wholly or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Government of Tamil Nadu or local authorities or Government companies or Corporations or co-operative societies to constitute Internal Complaints Committee (in short ‘ICC’) as per Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 (in short ‘Act’) with immediate effect. 3. The writ petition was filed on 30.08.2018 along with W.M.P.Nos.26386 to 26388 of 2018 praying for a direction to R2 to R4 to issue suitable circular/instruction to all the Department, Organization, undertaking, establishment, enterprise, institution, branch or unit which is established, owned, controlled or wholly or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Government of Tamil Nadu or the local authority or a Government Company or a Corporation or a cooperative society to constitute Internal Complaints Committee as per Section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (prevention, Prohibition & Redressal) Act, 2013 in consonance with the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vishaka V. State of Rajasthan dated 13.08.1997 with immediate effect, W.M.P.No.26386 of 2018 seeking an ad interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to order dated 17.08.2018, pending disposal of the writ petition; W.M.P.No.26387 of 2018 seeking a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to file a status report with regard to the sexual harassment complaints received by all the departments, organization, undertaking, establishment, enterprise and institution in the State of Tamil Nadu and the action taken on them and W.M.P.No.26388 of 2018 seeking a direction to R5, the Director General of Police, to reconstitute the ICC constituted on 17.08.2018 by removing one Ms.S.Saraswathi from the Committee and replacing her with an alternative member in accordance with the provisions of the Act . 4. 4. W.P.No.22533 of 2018 was listed on 31.08.2018 before the First Bench which directed listing before an alternative Bench. 5. Separately, Dr. S. Murugan, Joint Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, against whom allegations of sexual harassment were made by one Ms. H. Jayalakshmi, an officer of the rank of Superintendent in the State Police Department, filed a writ petition praying for a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 3rd respondent therein, the Director General of Police, constituting the ICC on 17.08.2018 and consequential proceedings of the ICC dated 30.08.2018, and quash the same. Ms. Jayalakshmi is arrayed as the 6th respondent in the writ petition. 6. The writ petition was returned by the Registry to the counsel for the petitioner calling for the following clarifications: a. Since the petitioner is an IPS Officer and the matter relating to Indian Police Service would come within the Jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal and therefore, it may be clarified as to how this Writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The writ petition was re-presented with the following endorsement: b. The issue is not related to any service matter. The order under challenge is passed by Internal Complaints Committee. Hence within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Connected Writ Petition relating to the same issue in WP No.22533/2018 is pending before this Hon’ble Court. 7. In the meantime, Ms. H. Jayalakshmi had filed three (3) writ petitions in the 'service' category seeking the following reliefs, the first two being listed before the learned Single judge holding the portfolio for service matters: W.P.No.23292 of 2018: WRIT PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to transfer the 4th respondent to any non-sensitive post outside the directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption pending enquiry into the petitioner’s complaint dated 04.08.2018 and further ensure that he does not in any manner handle any work-related file pertaining to the petitioner. W.P.No.23293 of 2018: WRIT PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the record of the 2nd respondent in proceedings in RC. NO. Staff. I(1)/183780/2017 dated 17.08.2018 and quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to reconstitute the internal complaints committee in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. W.P.No.23293 of 2018: WRIT PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the record of the 2nd respondent in proceedings in RC. NO. Staff. I(1)/183780/2017 dated 17.08.2018 and quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to reconstitute the internal complaints committee in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. W.P.No.23846 of 2018: WRIT PETITION under Article 226 of the Constitution in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 5th respondent in proceedings dated 30.08.2018 in C.No.01/ICC/ADGP/Camp/2018-2 and quash the same in so far as the 5th respondent states that it is not the competent authority to decide on the petitioner’s request for transfer of the 4th respondent and further direct the 5th respondent to recommend transfer of the 4th respondent. 8. In W.P.Nos.23292 and 23293 of 2018, the learned single Judge has passed an order on 07.09.2018 permitting the petitioner therein to implead the appropriate parties in the Writ Petition and posted the matter for further hearing on 11.09.2018 at the end of motion list. As far as W.P.No.23846 of 2018 is concerned, the matter was listed before the Division Bench on 29.10.2018. We are unable to fathom from the record how a writ petition in the 'service category', that should normally be listed before the learned single Judge holding the subject portfolio, came to be listed before the Division Bench without any order for clubbing of the same. Be that as it may, the case file of W.P.No.23846 of 2018 appears to have been misplaced thereafter and thus the record of hearing before the learned single judge is unavailable. The case-file has been re-constructed by the Registry pursuant to its request that was ordered only on 12.12.2018. 9. The un-numbered Writ Petition filed by Dr.S.Murugan in W.P.S.R.No.94430 of 2018 appears to have been listed 'for maintainability' vide supplementary list at 2.15 p.m. before the Court on 10.09.2018 and an order passed in the W.P.S.R. by the Bench directing the Registry to number W.P.S.R.No.94430 of 2018, if it was otherwise in order and list the same along with W.P.Nos.22533, 23292 and 23293 of 2018 pending before the Single Judge along with W.P.S.R.No.94430 of 2018, once numbered. W.P.No.22533 of 2018, the PIL, was also listed at 2.15 p.m. on the same date before the Bench along with connected W.M.Ps. 10. W.P.No.22533 of 2018, the PIL, was also listed at 2.15 p.m. on the same date before the Bench along with connected W.M.Ps. 10. As far as W.P.22533 of 2018 was concerned, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 10.09.2018. The docket reflects that the matter was adjourned to 24.09.2018, on which date, it was directed to be listed on 04.10.2018 under the caption ‘for withdrawal’. The Writ Petition, though directed to be listed on 04.10.2018 under the caption 'for withdrawal', was not listed on 04.10.18 under the said caption. 11. On 10.09.2018, the Bench proceeded to pass the following orders/directions in W.P.S.R.No.94430 of 2018: (i) Implead suo moto the CBCID as 7th respondent. (ii) Grant an interim stay of all further proceedings of 3rd respondent dated 17.08.2018 until further orders. (iii) Direct the Media not to make any publication in regard to the complaint filed against the petitioner by the 6th respondent and any further proceedings thereto, until further orders. 12. The matter, numbered as W.P.No.25213 of 2018, thereafter came up on 24.09.2018 along with W.P.Nos.23292, 23293 and 23846 of 2018 when the Bench recorded the statement of the learned Advocate General appearing for the State to the effect that the reconstitution of the ICC in the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption was on-going. The learned Advocate General was requested to mediate in the matter in terms of Section 10 of the Act and the matter was directed to be listed on 04.10.2018. 13. All the Writ Petitions, viz., W.P.Nos.25213, 22533, 23292, 23293 and 23846 of 2018 came up on 05.10.2018. The Bench noted that a Special Committee has been constituted under the aegis of the DVAC and directed that the copy of the proceedings constituting the Special Committee be served upon the parties concerned enabling them to file their objections, if any. The interim stay already granted was specifically directed to continue until further orders. 14. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the entire batch has been listed for hearing before us. We proceed to address the matters before us separately, W.P.No.22533 of 2018, ostensibly filed in public interest first, and the remaining matters thereafter. 15. Public Interest Litigation, by definition should pursue a public cause. It is not intended to provide a platform for a party to vent a private grievance, for which there are other avenues. 16. We proceed to address the matters before us separately, W.P.No.22533 of 2018, ostensibly filed in public interest first, and the remaining matters thereafter. 15. Public Interest Litigation, by definition should pursue a public cause. It is not intended to provide a platform for a party to vent a private grievance, for which there are other avenues. 16. In the present case the petitioner, one K.Prem Anand, claiming to be an advocate, seeks directions to respondents 2 to 4 being the Secretaries of the Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Labour and Employment Department and Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department to constitute ICCs as per Section 4 of the Act framed in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka Vs. State of Rajasthan ( (1997) 6 SCC 241 ). 17. Paragraphs 1 to 15 of the writ petition set out the background in which the Act has been passed, detailing the onerous circumstances faced by the women at workplaces. This led to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka’s case (supra) laying down twelve guidelines to be followed by employers/establishments to prevent and deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment toward women employees and to provide for acceptable procedure for the resolution of disputes in regard to the commission of acts of sexual harassment or punitive measures to be taken in this regard. Fifteen years later, the Act came into force on 09.12.2013. 18. The petitioner makes a general averment in paragraph 12 that even after its enactment, there are thousands of organizations, both private and public, that are yet to constitute ICCs. The background to the legislation is set out in paragraph 1 to 15 of the writ petition in a general and non-specific fashion. 19. Paragraph 17 onwards of the writ petition till paragraph 31 go on to deal exclusively with the constitution of an ICC by the police department pursuant to certain media reports cited by the petitioner, to investigate allegations of sexual harassment by the 6th respondent, Dr. Murugan, Joint Director in the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption by Ms. H. Jayalakshmi. The affidavit delves deep into various proceedings in the matter setting out details of the committee constituted on 17.08.2018 and making several allegations against the constituent members. Murugan, Joint Director in the Department of Vigilance and Anti Corruption by Ms. H. Jayalakshmi. The affidavit delves deep into various proceedings in the matter setting out details of the committee constituted on 17.08.2018 and making several allegations against the constituent members. Various allegations are also made against the respondents arrayed in the writ petition all of whom hold responsible positions in the Government, the Chief Secretary, the Secretaries of various government Departments and the Joint Director of Police. No counters have been filed by the respondents. 20. We refrain from going into the allegations made since we are of the view that this is not the platform for the petitioner to have agitated the same. In paragraph 26 of the affidavit filed in support of the PIL, serious allegations are raised against the individual arrayed as 6th respondent. A perusal of the writ petition leaves us no doubt that the petition has been filed solely to advance a private grievance. No public cause is made out at all. Though the prayer is couched such as to make it appear that it addresses non-compliance with the Vishaka guidelines, there are neither instances offered to illustrate the alleged violations, nor remedies by way of solutions. We thus have no hesitation in dismissing W.P.No.22533 of 2018 since we are of the view that it is not bonafide. W.P.No.22533 of 2018 is dismissed and all connected W.M. P.s are closed. No costs. 21. The prayer sought for in the PIL for constitution of ICC in various Departments is, however, left open for determination in an appropriate case, if and when raised by a bonafide petitioner, in public cause. 22. As far as W.P.Nos.23292, 23293 and 23846 of 2018 and connected WMPs filed by Ms.H.Jayalakshmi and W.P.No.25213 of 2018 and connected WMPs filed by Dr.Murugan are concerned, the same are not maintainable before us. We straightaway refer to Guidelines No.SRO C-2/2010 dated 26.07.2010 issued by the High Court in regard to the filing of Public Interest Litigations. Paragraph 3 specifically bars the filing of/entertaining by the Court of Petitions relating to Service matters and reads thus: '3. If the petitioner has filed any PIL earlier, the details of the petition, and the final order, if any, passed in that petition, the relief granted and costs, if any, awarded, shall be indicated. Paragraph 3 specifically bars the filing of/entertaining by the Court of Petitions relating to Service matters and reads thus: '3. If the petitioner has filed any PIL earlier, the details of the petition, and the final order, if any, passed in that petition, the relief granted and costs, if any, awarded, shall be indicated. No Public Interest Litigation Petition will be entertained in respect of civil disputes between individuals or in service matters. The petitioner shall give an undertaking that he will pay the costs, if any, if it is found to be intended for personal gain or oblique motive.' (emphasis ours) 23. In fact, an objection has been raised by the Registry on 10.09.2018 to the maintainability of the writ petition filed by Dr.Murugan, and the listing of the same before the Division Bench. However, the Writ Petition in S.R. stage appears to have been listed before the Bench on the same day and interim directions issued by this Court prior to overruling of that office objection and numbering of the writ petition and listing of the same in regular course. The procedure followed, in regard to listing of cases and obtaining of interim orders at S.R.stage, appears mysterious, to say the least, apart from being irregular. The maintainability of the matters has thus not been adjudicated upon at all. Since W.P.Nos.23292, 23293 and 23846 of 2018 filed by H.Jayalakshmi and W.P.No.25213 of 2018 filed by Dr.Murugan and all connected miscellaneous petitions relate solely to matters concerning service of the petitioners therein, as seen from the prayers sought, we are not inclined to entertain these petitions, as apparently, they pertain to the jurisdiction of the single Judge. 24. In the aforesaid circumstances, the writ petitions filed by Ms.H.Jayalakshmi (W.P.Nos.23292, 23293 and 23846 of 2018) be transferred back to the file of the learned Single Judge after obtaining orders from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice and W.P.No.25213 of 2018 filed by Dr.S.Murugan also be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders in regard to listing of the same. 25. The interim orders dated 10.09.2018 have been obtained in a writ petition and miscellaneous petitions that were yet unnumbered as on that date, pre-maturely, and upon an erroneous representation of the petitioner about the category of cases, connecting it to a PIL, which we have found not bonafide. 25. The interim orders dated 10.09.2018 have been obtained in a writ petition and miscellaneous petitions that were yet unnumbered as on that date, pre-maturely, and upon an erroneous representation of the petitioner about the category of cases, connecting it to a PIL, which we have found not bonafide. We have also in the earlier paragraphs set out the manner in which the matters have been listed, concluding that all the remaining Writ Petitions, except W.P.No.22533 of 2018, which stands dismissed, ought to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to be placed before the appropriate Bench. Thus, the interim directions issued on 10.09.2018 stand vacated with immediate effect. 26. We also clarify that though arguments have advanced before us in regard to the merits of the writ petitions, we have not adverted to the same in the light of our conclusions as above.