D. Murugesan, J.@mdashThis writ appeal is directed against the order dismissing the writ petition. The facts giving rise to the present appeal as put forth by the Appellant are as follows. The Appellant joined the Tamil Nadu Police Service in the year 2004 as a Woman Sub Inspector of Police. While she was working in Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District, her father by name P. Kanagasamy made a complaint dated 21.12.2009 to the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District complaining that one Thiru Senthamaraikannan, Head Constable, SBCID, Manamadurai was making false propaganda against his daughter. Though the Appellant was directed to attend the training at Vandalur, she did not go as she was upset over the act of the said Head Constable. Thereafter, another complaint dated 2.4.2010 was given by the father of the Appellant to the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai against the very same Head Constable with the same allegations. He further complained that in spite of his best efforts, he could not meet the Superintendent of Police in person to put forth the grievance against the Head Constable. In that complaint, he requested that the Appellant may be transferred to any other branch.
2. Thereafter, the Appellant herself lodged another complaint dated 19.6.2010 to the Home Secretary making allegations against the Head Constable and in that complaint, she also stated that at the guise of enquiring into the complaint given by her father to the Superintendent of Police on 21.12.2009, she was called by the Superintendent of Police on 22.12.2009 and was sexually harassed. The copies of the said complaint were also sent to the Director General of Police as well as the Inspector General of Police, South Zone. These complaints were acknowledged by the respective officers and no action was taken. She again made another complaint dated 9.7.2010 to the Director General of Police to take action against the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District and the Head Constable, but no action was taken. Hence, she filed the writ petition seeking for a direction to the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate action against the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, the Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station and the Head Constable Senthamaraikannan, Special Branch, Manamadurai based on the complaint dated 19.6.2010 in accordance with law.
3. The writ petition was, however, dismissed on the ground that an enquiry was conducted on the complaint made by the father of the Appellant by a woman Deputy Superintendent of Police and in that enquiry, the Appellant herself had submitted a letter to the said officer stating that there was no sexual harassment meted out to her by any of the police officials in that district. That report was submitted to the Inspector General of Police and thereafter the further action was dropped on 21.12.2009. Thereafter only the Appellant had lodged a fresh complaint on 19.6.2010. Hence the learned Judge held that entertaining such a complaint would definitely tarnish the image of not only the Respondents, namely, the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District, the Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station and the Head Constable, Special Branch, Manamadurai, but also the entire police force in the State. Questioning the said order, the Appellant has filed the present writ appeal.
4. Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that so far as the complaints given by the father of the Appellant against the Head Constable is concerned, the enquiry conducted by the woman Deputy Superintendent of Police is not in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3, wherein it is stated that the Appellant was initially posted in Sivagangai District from Ramnad district in the year 2008 on her request. At Sivagangai District, she served from 5.6.2008 to 31.7.2010. Her probation period was extended for six months due to her unsatisfactory performance. She was also awarded two punishments when she was in Ramnad district. Thereafter, the Appellant was transferred from Manamadurai SIPCOT Police Station to Ilayangudi Police Station, Sivagangai District along with seven other women Sub Inspectors of Police, who were transferred to various places on administrative grounds. While she was working in Ramnad district in the year 2007, a false publication with sexual torture was published in a weekly Tamil magazine "Naveena Netrikan" as if the Appellant was tortured by Khaki uniform personnel and she is in the habit of making such allegations against the police personnel. It is also stated that the allegation against the District Superintendent of Police is only an after-thought and the complaint dated 19.6.2010 was despatched only on 2.7.2010 after she gave a statement before the woman Deputy Superintendent of Police on 10.6.2010 stating that she was not subjected to sexual harassment by the police personnel for the past two years in Sivagangai District. As there were allegations against the Appellant in respect of certain delinquencies, apprehending that action might be taken by the Superintendent of Police, she has lodged the complaint against the District Superintendent of Police. It is also stated that all other women Sub Inspectors of Police have jointly given a written statement stating that they were not subjected to any sexual harassment by the police personnel.
6. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the Superintendent of Police, Sivagangai District. In the counter affidavit, he has stated that the performance of the Appellant in maintaining the station records and investigation of cases was not upto the mark. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai during his station visit to SIPCOT police station had noticed certain delinquencies against the Appellant like improper investigation of property crime and other cases and negligence of duty in not maintaining important registers. On the basis of the inspection, he submitted a report recommending for disciplinary action against the Appellant. Hence charge memos were issued to the Appellant and among the four charges, further action was dropped in respect of two charges and minor punishment of Censure was awarded in the remaining two charges. The Range Deputy Inspector General of Police, while reviewing the punishment rolls, observed that the District Superintendent of Police had taken a lenient view in imposing the punishment for the delinquencies committed by the Appellant and in this regard he issued a memo to the District Superintendent of Police stating that this type of lenient punishments would embolden the Appellant in indulging in such further activities. That apart, the Appellant had already suffered two punishments in the year 2007. Apprehending that the Superintendent of Police might take action on the basis of the observations of the Range Deputy Inspector General of Police, the complaint dated 19.6.2010 was given as an after-thought. Narrating the sequence of events, he has further stated in the counter affidavit that the complaint dated 21.12.2009 was only against the Head Constable and according to the Appellant, on 22.12.2009, the Superintendent of Police called her and sexually harassed her. However, strangely, her father has not stated about the sexual harassment in the subsequent complaint dated 2.4.2010 addressed to the Inspector General of Police, Madurai Zone, wherein allegations were made only against the Head Constable and only with a request that the Appellant may be transferred to any other branch of the police in Sivagangai District. Even at the time of enquiry by the woman Deputy Superintendent of Police, she had stated that there was no sexual harassment by any of the police officials in the district and on that basis, the further action was dropped. Thereafter only, she has made this complaint with ulterior motive.
7. Mr. V. Rajasekaran, learned Special Government Pleader for the Respondents 1 to 3 & 5, based on the averments in the counter affidavits, has submitted that insofar as the complaints lodged by the father of the Appellant against the Head Constable, action had been taken and the enquiry was dropped. He would submit that no specific allegation has been made against the Inspector of Police of Ilayangudi Police Station. Insofar as the allegations against the District Superintendent of Police, he would submit that the complaint is false and only an after-thought. As the complaints against the Head Constable dated 21.12.2009 and 2.4.2010 had been considered and further action was dropped, no relief can be granted as to the allegations contained in those complaints. He would further submit that the Appellant has approached the Court without questioning the proceedings dropping further action on the earlier two complaints. He would further submit that as the learned Judge has correctly dismissed the writ petition, no interference is called for in the writ appeal.
8. Mr. M. Krishnappan, learned senior Counsel for the fourth Respondent would also submit that so far as the complaints against the Head Constable are concerned, action had been taken and the enquiry was dropped. So far as the allegations made against the fourth Respondent are concerned, in addition to the submissions made by the learned Special Government Pleader, he would add that till the report was published in the evening Tamil daily ''Malai Murasu'' dated 31.5.2010, there was no allegation against the fourth Respondent. In that daily, it was reported that the women Sub Inspectors of Police in Sivagangai District are subjected to sexual harassment. Thereafter, the very same Tamil daily in its publication dated 9.6.2010 carried another news item questioning the sluggish attitude of the authorities in not taking action against the police officials who are alleged to have sexually harassed the Appellant. He would further submit that after the above publication, the entire women police personnel of that district caused a notice to the editor of that daily stating that such news was a generalised one as if all the women police personnel of that district were subjected to sexual harassment and therefore they were mentally affected. With that grievance they requested the editor of the daily to publish a report denying the news. Even thereafter, there was no denial. In the meantime, the enquiry was also conducted on the complaint given by the father of the Appellant by a team headed by the woman Deputy Superintendent of Police and a report was submitted stating that the allegations were false. Even in that enquiry, the Appellant herself had given a letter stating that she was not subjected to sexual harassment. Even before the publication of the news item in the evening daily, there were frequent telephonic conversation between the Appellant and the reporter of the daily. In support of the said submission, he has also filed the details of the incoming and outgoing calls from the mobile phones belonging to the Appellant and the reporter of the daily. Therefore, the Appellant and the editor had connived and caused the publication only to tarnish the image of the entire police personnel of Sivagangai District. After all the above only, as an after-thought, a complaint was made on 19.6.2010 against the Superintendent of Police anticipating initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Hence the learned senior Counsel submitted that the allegations against the fourth Respondent are false and motivated. As the complaint is not bona fide and has been resorted only as an ''escape route'', the Appellant does not deserve any indulgence from this Court. With the above submissions, he seeks for the dismissal of the writ appeal.
9. Mr. B. Pugalendhi, learned Counsel for the sixth Respondent, in addition to the above submissions, has added that the complaint against the Head Constable is baseless and false. He would submit that in fact, on behalf of the sixth Respondent, a legal notice was issued to the publisher and editor of the evening Tamil daily ''Malai Murasu'' and no reply has been received so far. He would submit that steps will be taken to prosecute the Appellant and the publisher of the newspaper for having made such false news. He would further submit that in view of the fact that the enquiry is already over, no further direction is required.
10. We have heard the respective submissions. The Appellant had approached this Court with an innocuous prayer for a direction to the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Tamil Nadu to take appropriate action on her complaint dated 19.6.2010. When such a relief is asked for, it will not be proper for this Court to go into the merits of the complaint and for that matter, the rival contentions. Though certain allegations are made against the Respondents 4 to 6, they have been denied. The question is as to whether the complaints given by the father of the Appellant and the Appellant herself were considered and any action was taken. As far as the complaints of the father dated 21.12.2009 and 2.4.2010 are concerned, it appears that an enquiry was conducted by a team headed by the woman Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai and in that enquiry, the Appellant had also given a letter stating that there was no sexual harassment from any of the police personnel of that district. That apart, in the independent enquiry conducted by the Inspector of Police, Special Branch, Manamadurai, it came to be known that the complaint was false. The fact that the Appellant also gave a statement in writing that she was not subjected to any sexual harassment by any police officer, is not denied. The further fact remains that almost all the women Sub Inspectors of Police from that district have also given a statement in writing that they were not sexually harassed by any police officer. The report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police also stated that the complaint was false. Based on such reports, further proceedings were dropped on both the above complaints. There is no dispute that the action to drop further proceedings was not questioned by the Appellant.
11. In spite of the above, the Appellant had lodged another complaint, of course, after nearly six months I.e., on 19.6.2010. It is the contention of the Respondents that this complaint is an after-thought and only to avoid any possible disciplinary proceedings against the Appellant. The question is whether the complaint of sexual harassment could be said to be false even without there being any enquiry conducted by a mechanism in consonance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka''s case, especially when the allegations trigger against the District Superintendent of Police. As could be seen from the records, the complaints given by the father of the Appellant were alone enquired by a team headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai, which submitted a report stating that the complaints were false. Those complaints were against the Head Constable and not against the Inspector of Police, Ilayangudi Police Station and the report was much earlier to the complaint of alleged sexual harassment of the Appellant by the Superintendent of Police. The complaint alleging sexual harassment by the Superintendent of Police was lodged only on 19.6.2010. From the counter affidavits filed by the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai and the Superintendent of Police, Sivangangai District, we could see that no enquiry was conducted on the said complaint by a committee or for that matter by a superior officer. In the absence of such an enquiry, it may not be proper to throw the complaint as false solely on the ground that it was an after-thought, further proceedings based on the complaint against the Head Constable were dropped and that the complaint dated 19.6.2010 was only to avoid the possible disciplinary action. We hasten to add that we are not suggesting as to whether the complaints against the Respondent-police officials are true or not. Nevertheless, the law requires that once a complaint is lodged and that complaint prima facie makes certain allegations, particularly the allegation of sexual harassment, it cannot be said that it need not be enquired merely because the Appellant had gone to the Press and was the cause for making a general allegation of sexual harassment meted out to all the women Sub Inspectors of Police of that district. In our opinion, even assuming that going to the Press before lodging the complaint to the concerned police officials cannot be appreciated, still, that itself cannot be a ground to contend that the Appellant should lose her right to make any grievance as to the alleged sexual harassment at the hands of the police officials.
12. Every citizen expects the police force to be a disciplined force. The role of police in the adherence to and enforcement of rule of law is significant. High responsibility coupled with duty is cast upon such police personnel to entertain, enquire, investigate and take action on any complaint of sexual harassment, be it on the public or their own personnel. Furthermore, high degree of responsibility is attached while handling such complaints against a person belonging to such force and that too, against a superior police officer for the alleged sexual harassment in the work place. Those against whom such allegations are made should not hesitate to face the enquiry on the ground that in the event such allegations are entertained and enquired, the morale of the entire force will be destroyed/devastated. We may point out that those officers are certainly entitled to defend and come out of the allegations, but it would be inappropriate for them to expect that no enquiry should be held on those allegations. As law enforcing personnel, they must first observe law. Equally, the one who makes allegations of sexual harassment should also know of the consequences in the event the complaint turns to be false, thereby inviting legal action from the affected officer.
13. In this context, we may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishaka''s case. In paragraph-16 of that judgment, the Supreme Court, on noticing that there is no enacted law to provide for the effective enforcement of the basic human right of gender equality and guarantee against sexual harassment and abuse, more particularly against sexual harassment in the work place, has laid down certain guidelines and norms for due observance in all the work places or other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for that purpose. Our attention is not drawn to any of such legislation having been enacted so far. Hence the guidelines and the norms prescribed by the Supreme Court would still hold good. In those guidelines, after defining certain instances of sexual harassment, the Supreme Court directed the constitution of a complaint mechanism to be created by the employer for redressal of the complaint made by a victim and such mechanism should ensure the time bound treatment of complaints. The Supreme Court also directed that the complaint mechanism should be adequate to provide for a Complaints Committee, which should be headed by a woman and not less than half of its members should also be women. Here again, our attention is not drawn to any of such mechanism having been constituted in the police department.
14. Under these circumstances, the facts in issue should be considered. No enquiry has been conducted so far in respect of the complaint dated 19.6.2010, barring an enquiry into the allegations against the Head Constable. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the complaint dated 19.6.2010 should also be looked into by the Respondents 1 to 3. In the event of a complaint requiring serious consideration for an enquiry, does not receive such consideration, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court would be entitled to compel such officer to perform his/her duty and direct the enquiry to be conducted. The minimum expectation of a complainant is an enquiry and if the complaint is found to be true, the further action on such findings. That apart, this Court cannot ignore the fact that there could be a possibility of "compelling interest" at the level of the officers in ignoring the complaints of sexual harassment of the personnel belonging to that department. The complaint of sexual harassment, which is serious in nature, cannot be brushed aside only on technicalities, namely, as belated and an after-thought. The Court, in matters like this, should not allow "bothersome technicalities" to stand in the way in order to issue appropriate directions.
15. It is seen that the Appellant had lodged the complaints to the Director General of Police and the Inspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai Range and has filed the acknowledgment cards. It is also stated that such a complaint had been sent to the Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, but she has not filed any acknowledgment for having sent such a complaint. That apart, the Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range, who is the immediate superior and having direct control over the officer, has also filed the counter affidavit denying the allegations. Hence, in exercise of powers under Article 226, we direct the Appellant to once again furnish a copy of the complaint dated 19.6.2010 to the Director General of Police along with a copy of this order and if such complaint is received, the Director General of Police shall constitute a Committee headed by a woman superior police officer of her choice in the police department to enquire into the allegations made in the complaint independently without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. On receipt of such a report from the Committee, she may dispose of the complaint in accordance with law. We may also point out that by issuance of the directions, this Court should not be understood to have gone into the merits of the complaint and expressed its opinion on the same.
16. We may add that we are pained to hear the submission of the Respondents that by virtue of the generalised statement in the newspaper, the family members of those women Sub Inspectors of Police working in that district were also humiliated. Unconfirmed reports will certainly lead to humiliation and more particularly on the family members of the women Sub Inspectors of Police working in that district. The family bondage of such police officers would certainly be devastated and damaged by such reports. Such unconfirmed reports may also bring terrible retribution as if the police personnel had indulged in sexual harassment involving all the women Sub Inspectors of Police in that district and hence such reports should be avoided. We are not inclined to give any definite finding on the rival submissions over the news item in the evening Tamil daily, as the daily is not before us and such finding is not necessary for the disposal of the writ appeal.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ appeal is disposed of. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2010 is closed. No costs.
