SUNDARESAN PILLAI Vs. SEETHALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025, filed this writ appeal under Sec. 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, challenging the judgment dtd. 6/1/2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in that writ petition.

(2.) The appellant, a retired Senior Principal Scientist of CSIR, New Delhi, has been associated with the Integrated Rural Technology Centre ('IRTC' in short) as its Director. On 27/11/2024, a woman employee lodged a complaint alleging sexual harassment against the appellant. The 1st respondent, acting as the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee ('ICC' in short), issued Ext.P1 notice dtd. 3/2/2025, directing the appellant to appear before ICC on 22/2/2025. Contending that by virtue of the definition of employer/Head of Institution under Sec. 2(g) of the Sexual Harassment of Woman At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ('PoSH Act' for short), a complaint against the employer will lie only before the Local Committee ('LC' for short) under Sec. 6(1) of the PoSH Act, the appellant approached the 4th respondent District Collector by filing Ext.P5 representation dtd. 15/1/2025. By Ext.P6 order dtd. 21/1/2025, the respondent forwarded the 4th appellant's representation to the 5th respondent District Women and Child Development Officer, directing that appropriate action be taken after considering the complaint and the appellant's objection. During the pendency of Ext.P5 representation submitted by the appellant before the District Collector and Ext.P6 direction issued by him, the 1st respondent proceeded to issue Ext.P1 notice to the appellant. Claiming that the complaint lodged by the lady staff is solely with an intention to harass the appellant and there is glaring conflict of interest between the appellant and the 1st respondent, who is in-charge of ICC, which according to the appellant was due to his act of withholding of salary of the 1st respondent and also raising some allegations of personal grudge, against the lady who had filed complaint against the appellant, in connection with a strike allegedly conducted on 26/11/2024 while the conference meeting of the appellant and 14 other Scientists was going on, the appellant filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs;

(3.) In the writ petition, respondents 1 to 3 filed a counter affidavit dtd. 23/5/2025 opposing the reliefs sought for and producing therewith Exts.R3 (a) document. To that counter affidavit, the appellant filed a reply affidavit dtd. 16/6/2025. Along with I.A.No.2 of 2025, the appellant produced Ext.P7 document in the writ petition. The 5th respondent filed a counter affidavit dtd. 3/7/2025 opposing the reliefs sought for. The respondents 1 to 3 again filed an additional counter affidavit dtd. 20/8/2025 producing therewith Exts.R3(b) to R3(i) documents. Along with I.A.No.7 of 2025, the appellant produced Exts.P7(a) to P7(d) and P8 documents in the writ petition. Thereafter, along with I.A.No.8 of 2025, the appellant produced Exts.P9 to P17 documents.