(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to order dated 19.09.2025 bearing No.4056/WC/A3/2025 passed by the 3rd respondent purporting to act as the 1st respondent and quash the same.)

This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by the third respondent, acting as the first respondent, and to quash the same.

2. Upon hearing Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and perusing the material records of the case, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner and the third respondent are employed with the fourth respondent company. The petitioner is the immediate superior under whom the third respondent worked from 07.06.2023 to 31.08.2023. While so, when the petitioner made a complaint regarding work-related issues, the second respondent lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against the petitioner. As per the procedure, a duly constituted Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as ‘ICC’) took up the issue in accordance with the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘POSH Act’) and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. The Committee, conducting enquiries on various dates, ultimately recommended that further proceedings be dropped against the petitioner, holding that all four allegations were not proved. It is seen that the second respondent made the following allegations: the first is that the petitioner used to stare at the complainant inappropriately; the second is that the petitioner had touched the complainant inappropriately; the third is that, on multiple occasions without just cause, the petitioner had spoken to her inappropriately about non-work-related issues; and the fourth is that, developing animosity, the petitioner retaliated against the second respondent by filing a false complaint with the Cybercrime Investigation Response Team (CIRT), not approving her LWT, and putting her on PIP.

4. The petitioner had not filed any appeal against the said findings. However, she approached the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women merely issued summons to the petitioner, the Management, and the Member of the Committee, and after an informal examination on one day, merely on the ipse dixit of the second respondent, held that the Committee established under the POSH Act did not follow the law and did not consider the victim's case in a proper perspective, and straightaway ordered the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner by the jurisdictional Police. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

5. The Writ Petition is resisted by the respondents. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the complaint, as given by the victim, has been enquired into in accordance with law. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women has power under Section 7(3) of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) to give such a direction to the Police. The instant allegations fall within the powers of the Tamil Nadu State Commission under the Act, and therefore a direction was given in accordance with the procedure.

6. A separate counter-affidavit is filed by the second respondent/victim, stating that the Writ Petition is nothing but an attempt to protract the proceedings. Even independently of the proceedings, the petitioner is entitled to lodge a Police complaint. If the petitioner’s action amounts to sexual harassment, the Police is bound to register a complaint. The impugned order has rightly been passed, and the second respondent, being a victim, was not properly treated by the ICC. The ICC itself has recorded that the petitioner’s conduct has violated professional boundaries, and the second respondent was justified in complaining that the petitioner was acting in a patronising manner. These concerns fall within the ambit of workplace issues.

7. The ICC had only rendered a finding for want of evidence, inasmuch as there were no eyewitnesses. That finding is incorrect, and when the second respondent has deposed in detail against the petitioner, the finding of the Committee is erroneous in law. The second respondent has duly exposed the fraud committed by the petitioner with reference to the alleged data theft incident that happened on 29.06.2026, and even on a perusal thereof, it can be seen that the complaint is motivated and is only retaliation, that the second respondent/victim did not co-operate for the inappropriate behaviour of the petitioner.

8. The second respondent, in detail, has filed a counter-affidavit and sur-rejoinder explaining each and every finding of the Committee and explaining in detail how she has not committed any commission or omission relating to the alleged data theft.

9. A counter-affidavit is also filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, under which it is stated that the complainant was examined as per the POSH Act, both the first and second complaints of the victim were taken into account, and when the Committee rendered its final findings without filing an appeal, the second respondent resorted to these proceedings.

10. The first contention of Mr.P.H.Aravind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, is that when the matter is considered in detail by the ICC, and the victim/second respondent has not filed any appeal against the recommendation made under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, and these matters are pending before the appropriate forum and were seized off by the appropriate forum, a reading of the Tamil Nadu Act, the National Commission Act, and the regulations framed by the Central Government under the National Commission Act shows that the Commission should not interfere with the matter. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Mary Rajasekaran Vs. University of Madras, Rep. by its Registrar and Ors. (2021 SCC OnLine Mad 4944), in this regard.

11. The second contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the Act categorically defines the term ‘Commission’ under Section 2(a) of the Act as ‘Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women constituted under Section 3’. Section 3(2) states that the Commission shall consist of a Chairperson, Members, and five other members to be nominated by the Government, two members to be nominated from the Members of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, the Secretary to Government, in-charge of the Social Welfare Department, being the ex officio member, and the Member Secretary to be appointed by the Government. The Commission has the powers under Section 7 of the Act to pass the orders enumerated thereunder, and in this case, the Chairperson alone passed the order. As such, the Chairperson individually has no powers under the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.

12. The third contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that even as per the procedure granted under the Act, such a recommendation under Section 7(3) of the Act can be made only after investigating the matter under the provisions of the Act. The Act itself also sets out the procedure for investigation. Without conducting any investigation whatsoever, and merely by holding the version of the second respondent/victim as correct despite a detailed enquiry by the ICC, the Chairperson passed the order; as such, the order is passed in violation of the provisions of law.

13. Mr.R.Chakkaravarthy, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 3, would reiterate the submissions made in the counter-affidavit.

14. Ms.I.Bobby Portia, learned Counsel for the second respondent/victim, would submit that the petitioner, being a perpetrator of sexual harassment, cannot escape investigation or prosecution on technical grounds or by protracting the matter. On a categorical reading of the petitioner's complaint and the evidence on record, it is evident that the victim has deposed in detail as to the harassment meted out to her, and the Committee recommended no further action only on the ground of lack of corroborating evidence.

15. These acts were private in nature by the perpetrator/petitioner, and there cannot be any eyewitness to the same. The Committee should have gathered the facts only from the circumstances. If the Committee had not done its duty properly, the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women also has the power to look into the same under Section 7 of the Act. Accordingly, when the petitioner made a complaint, after issue of summons, and when the respondents were only evading and not appearing before the Commission or properly answering the charges, the Commission passed the order in exercise of power under Section 7(3) of the Act. The same does not warrant any interference by this Court.

16. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel for the fourth respondent Company, would submit that the fourth respondent Company meticulously followed the mandate under the POSH Act and the ICC was duly constituted and the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law. The second respondent did not file any appeal as against the findings of the Committee.

17. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

18. The second respondent/victim, under the Act, has raised a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace. Under the POSH Act, the complaint must be duly considered and enquired into by the ICC constituted under the Act. The fourth respondent has duly constituted a Committee with three women members, including an external member. After a detailed enquiry, the Committee submitted its report dated 20.06.2025, recommending, under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, that further proceedings be dropped. In view of this, the employer has no option but to drop further proceedings. If the second respondent/victim is aggrieved, she may file an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act. A reading of Section 18, read with Rule 11 of the Rules framed thereunder, makes it clear that the second respondent/victim has to approach the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, as the case may be, against the recommendation made by the ICC.

19. It is settled law that after the conclusion of the enquiry, the ICC can recommend both the prosecution of the petitioner by the jurisdictional Police and the taking of departmental action, and also award such compensation, if it finds merits in the victim’s statement. It is also settled that, apart from approaching the ICC, if the perpetrator's action amounts to any criminal offence independently, the second respondent can also lodge a Police complaint. Upon such complaint, the Police is entitled to conduct a preliminary verification, and if they are satisfied that, prima facie, any offence is made out, they can register the case and proceed with the investigation. Simultaneously with, or before an enquiry by the ICC, or even after the enquiry by the ICC, the Police can independently take up the investigation, but they must give due consideration during the preliminary enquiry, to the findings made by the ICC.

20. As far as the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women is concerned, it is constituted under the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women Act, 2008, and the Act does not expressly provide for a quorum or benches to deal with individual complaints. However, Section 9(2) of the Act empowers the Commission to regulate its own procedure and that of the Committees. Therefore, the full Commission has to sit together, and it can lay down its own internal procedure for authorising the Chairperson, any single member, or more than one or two members to sit as a bench and enquire into the complaints.

21. It is true that this Court in C.Ve.Shanmugam Vs. The Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women and Ors. in W.P.(Crl.)No.1418 of 2025 and Mary Rajasekaran (cited supra) has dealt with the issue. The Court has only found that the Chairperson alone cannot constitute a quorum. The questions as to what constitutes a quorum, the procedure to be followed by the Commission, and whether all the members, as mentioned under Section 3 of the Act, have to sit together to enquire into each and every complaint, are not decided in the said judgments.

22. It must be noted that it will be impossible to go into the complaints if the entire Commission has to sit together. Therefore, the Commission should have framed procedures to that end. This issue was also dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India with reference to several other Tribunals, including the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act and the appellate authority under the P.M.L.A Act, and it can be seen that such an interpretation that, under all circumstances, the entire Commission should sit together, cannot be countenanced. Useful reference in this regard can be made to paragraph No.44 of the judgment of this Court in Pay Perform India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr. (2024 SCC OnLine Mad 188). The counter-affidavit filed in this case is silent on whether any such internal procedure has been framed.

23. The Commission generally has powers under Section 7(1) of the Act in respect of the subject matters enumerated thereunder. Under Section 7(1)(e), the Commission can also take up cases of violation of the provisions of the Constitution or other laws relating to women, in coordination with the concerned authorities. Therefore, if, in a given case, the Commission finds that the ICC has not at all followed the provisions of law, or that the provisions of the Constitution are violated with reference to the victim, it can take up the issue under Section 7(1)(e) or other provisions, depending on the nature of the complaint. However, as per the procedure explained in Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Act, the Commission is entitled to constitute such Committees with specific powers, thereby enabling one or two members to form the Committee, or by co-opting any other person with such allowances.

24. Section 10 of the Act also empowers the Commission, for the purpose of conducting an investigation under the said Act, to utilise the services of any other officer or Investigating Agency of the State Government, or any other person. Thus, for ready reference, Section 7(3) of the Act is extracted hereunder.

                   “7. Functions of The Commission.

                   …

                   (3) if the Commission, after investigating any matter, is satisfied that there is a prima-facie case, the Commission may refer the matter to the authority concerned, including the police, and such authority shall take appropriate action as per law.”

25. Thus, before referring the matter to the external authority, including the Police, for registration of an F.I.R and for investigation, the Commission must first cause an internal investigation under the Act. Only after the investigation, if it is satisfied that there is a prima facie case, such a direction can be given.

26. In the background of the aforesaid discussions, it is first observed that no internal investigation under the Act was conducted by the Chairperson before passing the order. Therefore, the impugned order cannot stand, and the Chairperson, without following the procedure mandated under the Act and without satisfying herself about the prima facie case, cannot act on subjective satisfaction formed merely by going through the complaint alone.

27. The procedure contemplated under the Act has to be followed before directing the Police to register a complaint. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside, and the matter is remanded. While dealing with the complaint, the Chairperson or any member shall ensure that they, as individual members, have been authorised by the Commission by way of any internal regulation as to the procedure. If no procedure has already been formulated by the Commission, the Commission can formulate one enabling an individual member to sit separately or two or three members to sit, depending on the decision of the Commission.

28. The counter-affidavit filed in this regard is silent on the matter, and therefore this Court keeps the issue open for consideration by the Chairperson or any other member dealing with this complaint individually, to look into whether the Commission has already authorised them to separately handle the complaint. If there is no other authorisation, they must bring it to the notice of the Commission, which must sit together, lay down this internal procedure, and only after the Commission lays down the procedure can further proceedings be carried out. Depending on the directives of the Commission, which are already in place or which are to be formed, further proceedings can be taken afresh before the Commission.

29. The Commission shall hear the victim/second respondent as well as the petitioner and the fourth respondent Company and pass further orders in accordance with the observations cited supra. Meanwhile, the second respondent may also approach the appropriate Tribunal against the findings made by the ICC.

30. This Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:-

                   (i) The impugned order, dated 19.09.2025 bearing No.4056/WC/A3/2025 passed by the third respondent purporting to act as the first respondent, is set aside.

                   (ii) It is made clear that all the questions raised before this Court by both sides can be raised before the Commission in the enquiry afresh. All parties shall co-operate, and the Commission, taking into account the aforesaid observations, shall conduct the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, in any event not later than four months from the date of receipt of a web-copy of this order.

                                (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.