SELVI Vs. DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a Sweeper in the second respondent College, which is an aided minority institution. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. She was placed under suspension by the order dated 28.10.2013, with immediate effect, pending enquiry into grave and serious charges. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to declare the suspension as null and void, illegal and abuse of its power.

(2.) Serious allegations are made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment at the work place, by the Principal and Superintendent of the second respondent college. It is alleged that no internal complaint committee was constituted as per "Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. In those circumstances, the petitioner made a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, on 06.09.2013, and the Commissioner, in turn, forwarded it to the Assistant Commissioner, St.Thomas Mount, for investigation. It is also stated that the Principal and the Superintendent committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. While so, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order dated 28.10.2013 pending enquiry into grave and serious charges.

(3.) The second respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and has stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension by the impugned order and alleged that she committed grave charges. Thereafter, a charge memo dated 26.12.2013 was issued to her making various allegations. The petitioner was directed to submit her explanation to the charge memo. The petitioner sought for the documents, based on which, the charge memo was issued. Subsequently, on 11.03.2014, copies of the documents were furnished to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner gave her reply on 06.05.2014 denying the charges. Further, it is stated that a domestic enquiry is now under process. The second respondent College denied the allegations made by the petitioner relating to sexual harassment and also disputed the caste status of the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance at the rate of half the rate of pay, which she was drawing at the time of suspension, as per Rule 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Rules, 1976. It is also pleaded that though the second respondent college is governed by the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act and the Rules framed thereunder, some of the provisions of the Act and the Rules are not applicable to the second respondent, since the second respondent is a minority college. The second respondent college sought for dismissal of the writ petition.