Rule 7 Of Posh Rules Are To Be Compiled With

Rule 7 Of Posh Rules Are To Be Compiled With, Give Time To Respond Madras Hc

Judgement Given On :

In a recent legal development, the Madras High Court addressed a critical issue pertaining to the compliance with Rule 7 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Rules 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “POSH Rules”). The Court, in response to a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, underscored the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards enshrined in Rule 7 and emphasized the significance of allowing adequate time for respondents to respond to allegations.

The Case at a Glance:

The petitioner, holding the position of Joint Commissioner in the Hindu Religious Endowment Department at Madurai, found himself embroiled in a challenging legal predicament. A complaint, dated 02.07.2019, was lodged by the complainant, alleging that on 29.06.2019, while both the petitioner and complainant were on official duty at Sathuragiri Hills, Saptur Village, Madurai District, the petitioner surreptitiously recorded the complainant bathing using a Mobile Pen Camera. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of the Hindu Religious and Endowment Department (3rd Respondent) suspended the petitioner based on the serious allegations raised in the complaint.

To ensure a fair and impartial inquiry into the matter, the Assistant Commissioner (2nd Respondent) constituted a committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act & Rules 2013. However, the petitioner raised crucial objections regarding the procedural aspects of the inquiry.

Allegations and Contentions:

The petitioner contended that the second respondent had directed him to appear for the inquiry without providing the requisite documents, including a copy of the complaint, supporting documents, and the names and addresses of the witnesses, as mandated by Rule 7(1) of the POSH Rules. The petitioner, who was on medical leave at the time, expressed his inability to attend the inquiry on the designated date.

In response, the petitioner informed the authorities that he was undergoing medical treatment for blood pressure and dizziness, and his attending the inquiry would contravene his doctor’s advice against travel. Accordingly, he reiterated the necessity for the second respondent to adhere to the provisions of Rule 7(1).

Despite these representations, the petitioner received further communication, indicating that approximately 16 witnesses had submitted their statements and directing him to appear for the inquiry. The petitioner’s legal counsel argued that in accordance with Rule 7(3) of the POSH Rules, the petitioner should have been granted a minimum of 10 working days to submit his response to the complaint.

Court’s Observations and Ruling:

In light of the petitioner’s legitimate concerns and the statutory provisions in question, the Madras High Court issued a directive. The court instructed the second respondent to afford the petitioner an extension of time until 07.08.2019 to submit his response to the complaint. It was explicitly stated that the second respondent must conduct the inquiry in strict adherence to the prescribed procedures outlined in the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Rules 2013.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the petitioner must fully cooperate with the committee during the course of the inquiry. This ruling underscores the court’s unwavering commitment to ensuring due process, upholding the principles of natural justice, and safeguarding the procedural rights of individuals involved in legal proceedings under the POSH Rules.

Conclusion:

The Madras High Court’s intervention in this case serves as a testament to the judiciary’s role in upholding the integrity of legal processes, especially in matters as sensitive as those governed by the POSH Rules. This ruling reiterates the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards and the equitable treatment of all parties involved, ultimately fostering a climate of fairness and justice.