JUDGMENT (Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner through the 6th respondent in the name of Vishaka Committee violating the provisions mandated in Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2013, The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 and The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Rules, 2013 considering the petitioner's representation dated 24.03.2022, in the nature and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.) 1. The Writ of Mandamus has been filed seeking a direction to direct the 3rd respondent to drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner through the 6th respondent-Internal Complaints Committee in the name of Vishaka Committee violating the provisions mandated in the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2013, the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for brevity) and the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace Rules, 2013 by considering the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 24.03.2022. 2. The petitioner is working as incharge Medical Officer, Ganapathipuram Primary Health Centre, Kanyakumari District. Pursuant to the complaint dated 30.03.2019 in C.C.No.20/2020, on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, an enquiry was conducted. The complaint was given by one Esakkiyammal against five officers. The allegation in the complaint is regarding birth of still born baby and removal of uterus at Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital, Kanyakumari District in which the petitioner claims that his role was very much limited. The departmental enquiry was initiated based on the complaint of Smt.Esakkiyammal dated 16.12.2019 and an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 24.12.2019 regarding the treatment provided to Mrs.Abina, daughter of Smt.Esakkiyammal. The enquiry proceedings were closed by the Department, as there is no basis for such allegations. 3. The petitioner states that a fresh complaint was given by Mrs.Abina to the 3rd respondent and the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that such a complaint is motivated and given at the instance of the Deputy Director of Health Services. Based on the allegations of sexual harassment in the complaint given by Mrs.Abina, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted and inquiry is proposed to be conducted. Based on the allegations of sexual harassment in the complaint given by Mrs.Abina, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted and inquiry is proposed to be conducted. Challenging the said action, the present writ petition is filed seeking to drop all further proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following grounds:- (i) The copies of the complaint and other supportive documents were not furnished to the writ petitioner and therefore, the very inquiry to be conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee is to be declared as invalid; (ii) The constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee is improper and not in accordance with Section 4 of the Act; (iii) Based on the complaint given by the mother of Mrs.Abina, departmental enquiry was conducted and all further actions were dropped. Therefore, the inquiry proposed to be conducted through Internal Complaints Committee is a de novo enquiry which is impermissible; and (iv) Such an inquiry through the Internal Complaints Committee is in violation of the Service Rules. 5. Raising the above four grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the entire action of constitution of Internal Complaints Committee under the Act is untenable, as the Department has already dropped all further actions, pursuant to the enquiry conducted. 6. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Nagaram Balakrishna vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others reported in CDJ 2021 APHC 444. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on para 43 of the judgment which reads as follows:- “43. If the woman employee stooped to such an extent of making complaint of sexual harassment against higher officer, while declining to discharge her duty as a part of investigation or assist the investigating officer, being a subordinate officer in the investigation, it would lead to serious consequences in discharging MSM,J WP.No.24885 of 2020 duties by the officer in conducting investigation. Sometimes, the police or excise officials or some other department officials have to investigate into several offences involving acts of sexual harassment. If such act is described as a sexual harassment at work place, it is difficult to discharge their duties at work place. Sometimes, the police or excise officials or some other department officials have to investigate into several offences involving acts of sexual harassment. If such act is described as a sexual harassment at work place, it is difficult to discharge their duties at work place. Take for instance, a Judicial Officer while dictating judgment to a lady Stenographer or lady Court Master in a case where such sexual explicit material is recorded in the First Information Report or in the evidence, the officer has to dictate the same to the Stenographer or Court Master. Such dictation is undoubtedly a sexual explicit material. If it is described as a sexual harassment at work place, it is difficult for any Judicial Officer to discharge his/her duty, so also by the Stenographer. Therefore, the act complained against this petitioner by a person who has no locus standi in terms of Section 9 of the Act is illegal. Hence, I find that the procedure followed by the respondents while passing impugned order of suspension placing this petitioner under suspension is totally contrary to the provisions of the Act and Rules framed thereunder; including Rule 3(d) of APCS (CCA) Rules. On this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.” 7. In the case of Subrata Kumar Choudhury vs. State Bank of India reported in CDJ 2008 Cal HC 748, the High Court of Calcutta made the following observations:- “27. Question that naturally arises as to whether the authority concerned can at all be permitted to go ahead with the said 'de novo enquiry', when the earlier enquiry ended with the finding that the charges could be treated as 'not proved'. 28. The stand taken by the learned Counsel for the authorities in the factual backdrop of the present case seems to be quite strange. The direction of the Apex Court, as referred to earlier, is clear and unambiguous. There can hardly be any justification in attempting to read something more than what meets the eyes. When there are specified provisions in the relevant disciplinary rules, the disciplinary action is very well expected to be taken up following the said rules. Even if there is no such rule, the authority concerned cannot afford to remain indifferent to any act, which may even remotely amount to sexual harassment at work place. 'Complaint mechanism' is independent of 'disciplinary action'. Even if there is no such rule, the authority concerned cannot afford to remain indifferent to any act, which may even remotely amount to sexual harassment at work place. 'Complaint mechanism' is independent of 'disciplinary action'. Even if the relevant service rules do not indicate that the alleged misconduct on the part of an officer/employee amounts to a misconduct of sexual harassment at work place, the authority concerned is required to take note of the said complaint mechanism and take appropriate action. But by no stretch of imagination, it can be interpreted in a manner, which would justify initiation of a second enquiry over the selfsame allegations when the first enquiry concluded with the finding of 'not guilty'.” 8. Relying on the above two judgments, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that non-supply of the copy of the complaint and the relevant documents are vital and further, the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee is not in accordance with Section 4 of the Act and the de novo enquiry through Internal Complaints Committee will amount to duplication and violation of Service Rules in force. 9. With reference to the first ground, the learned Additional Government Pleader objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner strenuously by stating that actions were initiated in March, 2022. The petitioner submitted a representation to furnish the copy of the complaint and all relevant documents on 24.03.2022. However, on the very next day on 25.03.2022, the writ petitioner filed the present writ petition and obtained an order of interim stay. Thus, the very allegation that the respondents have not supplied the copy of the complaint and other relevant documents is untenable. The respondents, in fact, are ready and willing to supply the copy of the complaint and all other relevant documents to the petitioner enabling him to defend his case in a free and fair manner before the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the Act. 10. With reference to the second ground raised by the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Pleader made a submission that para 6 of the affidavit filed by the writ petitioner in support of the writ petition is self- speaking and the allegations of sexual harassment were not enquired into by the Department. Thus, the ground of de novo enquiry is imaginary and unsustainable. 11. Thus, the ground of de novo enquiry is imaginary and unsustainable. 11. In this regard, para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition was relied on, which reads as under:- “6. I respectfully submit that the services available under the Government Medical Primary Health Centre is though provided, yet a complaint was preferred against the overall District Medical Services with regard to the alleged birth of still born baby and removal of uterus at Asaripallam Government Medical College Hospital, Kanya Kumari District and in which my role was very much limited and though I performed my duty and discharged my service at resources available at Primary Health Centre, Ganapathipuram, a complaint was made against me along with others exclusively for the purpose of filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum.” 12. With reference to the third ground regarding the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee in accordance with Section 4 of the Act, the learned Additional Government Pleader made a submission that Section 4(2)(a) of the Act stipulates “a Presiding Officer who shall be a woman employee at a senior level at workplace from amongst the employees”. In the present case, the Administrative Officer functioning in the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Kanyakumari is appointed as the Presiding Officer. Therefore, the said officer is not subordinate to the petitioner and thus, there is no irregularity. 13. The learned Additional Government Pleader made a submission that even if this Court is of the opinion that the Presiding Officer is to be in the higher rank, then the Department is ready to re-constitute the Internal Complaints Committee by appointing the higher ranking official as Presiding Officer for the purpose of conducting free and fair inquiry with reference to the allegations of sexual harassment. 14. With reference to the fourth ground raised by the petitioner that the action is in violation of the Service Rules, as the Department conducted an enquiry and dropped the allegations in respect of the complaint given by the mother of the complainant-Esakkiyammal, the learned Additional Government Pleader referred to Section 13 of the Act, which speaks about 'inquiry report'. 14. With reference to the fourth ground raised by the petitioner that the action is in violation of the Service Rules, as the Department conducted an enquiry and dropped the allegations in respect of the complaint given by the mother of the complainant-Esakkiyammal, the learned Additional Government Pleader referred to Section 13 of the Act, which speaks about 'inquiry report'. Sub-Section (1) to Section 13 stipulates that “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 of ten days from the date of completion of inquiry and such report be made available to the concerned parties”. Therefore, only after conducting an inquiry and submission of the inquiry report, question of initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the Discipline and Appeal Rules would arise and the presumption of the petitioner in this regard is in violation of the provisions of the Act itself. 15. Finally, the learned Additional Government Pleader made a submission that the prayer sought for in the writ petition is untenable, as a direction to drop the proceedings under the Act need not be granted in view of the fact that the departmental disciplinary proceedings are different and the allegation of sexual harassment in workplace is to be dealt with under the Act and it was rightly initiated by constituting an Internal Complaints Committee and thus, the writ petition is to be rejected. 16. Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the arguments and the counter arguments advanced deserve to be considered. 17. With reference to the non-furnishing of the copy of the complaint and the relevant documents, the respondents have made it clear that on initiation of action, in March, 2022, more specifically on 11.03.2022, the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee issued a notice to the petitioner to participate in the inquiry proceedings. Reference is made in respect of the complaint given by the President, Imayam Narpani Manram and the complaint given on behalf of the public in general by the DMK, Congress and CPI (M) political parties. Reference is made in respect of the complaint given by the President, Imayam Narpani Manram and the complaint given on behalf of the public in general by the DMK, Congress and CPI (M) political parties. This apart, the employees working in the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services and Primary Health Centre, Nagercoil have also given such complaints. Thus, it is not only the complaint of the complainant Smt.Abina, but also several complaints were received against the writ petitioner regarding the allegation of sexual harassment. This being the factum, this Court is of the concrete opinion that an inquiry under the provisions of the Act is imminent and warranted. 18. Regarding the ground of de novo enquiry, the submission made in this regard is unconnected with the allegations of sexual harassment against the petitioner. Perusal of the departmental enquiry reveals that it is relating to certain medical negligence and the enquiry was also conducted on that line. The allegations in this regard are admitted by the petitioner himself in para 6 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Thus, the ground of de novo enquiry does not arise at all. Beyond all this, the enquiry was conducted in respect of the complaint given by Esakkiyammal. The allegation of sexual harassment is raised by her daughter Mrs.Abina. Beyond the complaint of the individual, several other complaints were given on behalf of the public general by some political parties and by the employees working in the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Nagercoil. Therefore, the Internal Complaints Committee was constituted. The Committee, in turn issued a notice on 11.03.2022 based on more than one complaint of allegation of sexual harassment received against the writ petitioner. 19. The Internal Complaints Committee through intimation letter dated 11.03.2022 asked the petitioner to appear before the committee. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation on 24.03.2022 requesting the authorities to furnish the copy of the complaint and the relevant documents enabling him to defend the case. Without even waiting for the response from the competent authorities, the present writ petition is filed on the next day on 25.03.2022. Thus, the said ground is untenable and deserves no merit consideration. 20. As far as the third ground is concerned, inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee is independent and more specifically under the Act. Without even waiting for the response from the competent authorities, the present writ petition is filed on the next day on 25.03.2022. Thus, the said ground is untenable and deserves no merit consideration. 20. As far as the third ground is concerned, inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee is independent and more specifically under the Act. As rightly pointed by the learned Additional Government Pleader, Section 13 of the Act provides that only after conducting inquiry and submission of inquiry report, all further proceedings are to be initiated under the Service Rules and at the first instance, the Internal Complaints Committee is competent to conduct inquiry regarding the allegations of sexual harassment based on the complaints given by more than one persons against the writ petitioner. Thus, the action initiated under the Act is not in violation of the Service Rules and it is independent and based on the final inquiry report, all further actions are to be initiated. This apart, Section 14 of the Act contemplates punishment for false or malicious complaint and false evidence. Therefore, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved against any such complaint, which was subsequently found as false, he is at liberty to initiate all further actions in the manner known to law. Therefore, the said ground regarding violation of Service Rules is also unsustainable. 21. Lastly, with regard to the ground of constitution of Internal Complaints Committee with reference to Section 4 of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents appointed the Administrative Officer as the Presiding Officer. The Administrative Officer functioning in the office of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Kanyakumari is equivalent to the cadre of Medical Officer. Therefore, a higher level officer is to be appointed as Presiding Officer for the purpose of conducting an inquiry under the provisions of the Act. The learned Additional Government Pleader made a submission that the respondents are ready and willing to re-constitute the Internal Complaints Committee by appointing the higher level officer as Presiding Officer under Section 4 of the Act. In view of the said submission, the respondents are bound to appoint a higher level officer as Presiding Officer under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides constitution of Internal Complaints Committee. In view of the said submission, the respondents are bound to appoint a higher level officer as Presiding Officer under Section 4 of the Act. Section 4 of the Act provides constitution of Internal Complaints Committee. Sub- section (2)(a) of Section 4 stipulates that “a Presiding Officer who shall be a woman employee at a senior level at workplace from amongst the employees”. The word 'senior level employee' in the statute should be interpreted constructively with reference to the purpose and object sought to be achieved under the Act. The word 'senior level' indicates not a mere senior officer, but it indicates the senior level officer, who must be working in the higher cadre than that of the delinquent official. Even appointment of an equivalent level officer as Presiding Officer shall be avoided in order to avoid prejudices to either of the parties. In all circumstances, the senior level officer must be working in the higher rank than that of the delinquent official for the purpose of conducting inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee. In the present case, the Administrative Officer, who is appointed as the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee, is an equivalent level official and this Court is of the considered opinion that higher level officer is to be appointed for the purpose of conducting an inquiry, as the delinquent official is working in the rank of Medical Officer. 22. In view of the factum established and the grounds raised between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not established any other acceptable ground except the ground that the Presiding Officer must be a higher level officer in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. 23. 22. In view of the factum established and the grounds raised between the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has not established any other acceptable ground except the ground that the Presiding Officer must be a higher level officer in accordance with Section 4 of the Act. 23. Thus, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders:- (i) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to appoint a higher level woman officer as Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee in accordance with Section 4(2)(a) of the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and proceed with the inquiry in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules; (ii) Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to furnish the copies of the complaints and all other relevant documents to the writ petitioner on reconstitution of the Internal Complaints Committee by appointing a higher level officer as Presiding Officer; (iii) The Internal Complaints Committee constituted in accordance with Section 4 of the Act shall continue the inquiry proceedings by affording opportunity to all the parties and by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act and Rules and complete the inquiry in all respects and submit the inquiry report within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (iv) The writ petitioner is directed to cooperate for the early disposal of the inquiry proceedings by the Internal Complaints Committee and in the event of non-cooperation, the Committee shall record the same in the proceedings itself and in such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief on the ground that the inquiry proceedings are not concluded within the period stipulated; and (v) Respondents 1 to 3, on receipt of the final inquiry report, shall initiate all further actions in accordance with the provisions of the Act and by following the procedures as contemplated. 24. With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.