Madras HC refuses to quash sexual harassment proceedings against MCC asst prof

CHENNAI: Holding that the disciplinary authority is bound by the findings of fact given by the internal complaints committee, the Madras High Court refused to quash the sexual harassment proceedings initiated against an assistant professor of Madras Christian College (MCC).

Referring to various judgments of the Supreme Court, a division bench of Justice R Suresh Kumar and Justice K Kumaresh Babu wrote that the findings and the report of the complaints committee should not be treated as a mere preliminary investigation or an inquiry leading to disciplinary action, but should be treated as a finding or report in an inquiry into the misconduct of the delinquent in sexual harassment cases and dismissed a petition moved by the assistant professor facing sexual harassment allegation.

Samuel Tennyson moved a petition seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him by the internal complaints committee of MCC regarding the sexual harassment allegation by a girl student.

In 2019 the management of MCC issued a notice to the petitioner who was an assistant professor of the Zoology department regarding the sexual harassment allegation.

The petitioner submitted his explanation denying various allegations against him.

After the findings of the internal complaint committee, the college management initiated proceedings against the petitioner under the provision of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013.

The petitioner submitted that he was not assigned with any work such as valuation of answer scripts, and awarding internal marks and was restrained from accompanying the students on study for three years.

He further submitted that he was not afforded with an opportunity to cross-examine the alleged complainant or witnesses.

It was also submitted that the complainant had a motive to indict him, as he refused to sign her record note, as she had submitted the same beyond the time.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings initiated against him.

"If the arguments of the petitioner are to be accepted, it would only create a situation where the affected victims of sexual harassment would be again put to an embarrassment to once again substantiate their case before another authority", wrote the bench.

The Court conclusively concluded that there had been no infraction in the inquiry proceedings that had been conducted by the complaint committee and had not violated any of the basic principles of natural justice.