ANIL RAJAGOPAL K. P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the findings of the Committee, as entered in Ext.P21, based on a complaint by the 6th respondent, which is produced at Ext.P10. The complaint is under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ('Act of 2013' for short). Ext. P7 report by the petitioner is said to have resulted in the complaint. The Enquiry Committee conducted an enquiry as per S.11 of the Act of 2013 and found that the petitioner is liable to apologize to the 6th respondent; which is impugned herein.

(2.) The petitioner, an Assistant Professor in the College of Engineering, Thalassery, is also the Finance Coordinator. A personality development training program was conducted from 25th to 27th July, 2015, coordinated by the 6th respondent as Programme Coordinator. A report on expenditure was to be made by the petitioner regarding the training program, which was made as per Ext.P7. In that report, the petitioner had made a statement that the "original report was abducted by Smt. P. Rinitha" (sic). The petitioner intended to convey that it was taken away and suppressed by the 6th respondent.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the 6th respondent specifically objected to the maintainability of the writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The 6th respondent also submits that there is a wider connotation to sexual harassment, as seen from sub-section (2) of S.3 of the Act of 2013. The actions enumerated therein also would constitute an offense leading to sexual harassment, is the argument.