Kerala High Court
Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai vs Dr. K.K. Seethalakshmi on 6 January, 2026
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025
2026:KER:139
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 7354 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
PROF. (DR.) J. SUNDARESAN PILLAI
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, RESIDING ROOM NO. 103,
GUEST HOUSE OF INTEGRATED RURAL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE
MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678592
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN
SHRI.NAEEM IBRAHIM
SHRI.K.RANA DEEP
SRI.O.A.ANJU
SMT.ANAGHA S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 DR. K.K. SEETHALAKSHMI
PRESIDING OFFICER, INTERNAL COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
(ICC), INTEGRATED RURAL TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (IRTC),
MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678592
2 THE GOVERNING BODY OF IRTC
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, INTEGRATED RURAL
TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (IRTC), MUNDUR P.O.,
PALAKKAD, KERALA,
PIN - 678592
W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025
2026:KER:139
2
3 THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF IRTC
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, INTEGRATED RURAL
TECHNOLOGY CENTRE (IRTC), MUNDUR P.O., PALAKKAD,
KERALA, PIN - 678592
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678001
THE DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
CIVIL STATION, KENATHUPARAMBU, KUNATHURMEDU,
5 PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678001
6 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
BY ADVS.
SHRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW
SRI.ASWIN.P.JOHN
SHRI.R.ANANTHAPADMANABAN
SHRI.PAUL BABY
SMT.SWATHY A.P.
SRI VENUGOPAL, GOVT. PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 25.09.2025, THE COURT ON 06.01.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025
2026:KER:139
3
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioner retired from CSIR, New Delhi, as a Senior Scientist. Thereafter, he was appointed as Director of the Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC). The petitioner claims to have been associated with IRTC from its inception in 1987. He also claims that the IRTC achieved financial self- sufficiency in 2022-2023 and sought research affiliations with the University of Calicut. He is aggrieved by Ext.P1 notice issued by the 1st respondent in her capacity as the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) directing him to appear before her on 22.02.2025. According to the petitioner, he was targeted with false allegations to tarnish his reputation since he had raised concerns about the misuse W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 4 of Government accreditation in waste management, resulting in financial loss to the IRTC.
2. The petitioner submits that on 26.11.2024, the petitioner and 14 other Scientists held a meeting at the conference hall of the IRTC. It is stated that the meeting was disrupted by some staff of the IRTC along with individuals from outside. On a complaint submitted by the petitioner, the Police went to the conference hall to ensure that no law and order situation arose. It is stated that on 28.11.2024, the ASI of the Kongad Police Station had gone to the institution to take the statement of the petitioner. Ext.P2 is the statement recorded by the Police. On the previous day, 27.11.2024, a complaint had been lodged by one of the lady staff members against the petitioner, complaining of workplace harassment. The petitioner submits that the complainant lady was also associated with the incident that happened on 26.11.2024. Photographs showing her participation have been produced as Ext.P3. The 1 st respondent received the complaint dated 27.11.2024 on 29.11.2024. It is stated that the petitioner became aware of W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 5 the complaint only on receipt of a notice from the 1 st respondent directing him to appear. Ext.P4 is a communication sent to the petitioner by the 1 st respondent along with the complaint.
3. Alleging that the 1st respondent had a conflict of interest, the petitioner filed a representation before the 4 th respondent, District Collector, a copy of which has been produced as Ext.P5. It is stated that the 4 th respondent directed the 5th respondent to consider the complaint and the counter objections submitted by the petitioner together and arrive at a conclusion. Ext.P6 is the order issued by the 4 th respondent. A reading of Ext.P6 would suggest that the 4 th respondent had only forwarded the representation of the petitioner and sought further action and report. Ext.P6 is dated 21.01.2025. It is thereafter that Ext.P1 dated 03.02.2025 was issued by the 1st respondent to the petitioner, asking him to appear in person on 22.02.2025.
4. According to the petitioner, once the 4 th respondent had directed the 5th respondent to enquire into W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 6 the matter, the ICC had lost its jurisdiction, and the 1 st respondent could not have issued Ext.P1. It is argued that once the superior authority has assumed control over the matter, no parallel or unilateral action by a subordinate body like the ICC can be continued. It is also argued that the principle of Coram Non Judice will apply.
5. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed a counter affidavit. According to the respondents, the petitioner, while working as Director of the IRTC, had indulged in activities which were detrimental to the interest of the IRTC, and the Executive Committee was constrained to terminate him from the post. The petitioner had filed a suit seeking a declaration that the decision of the Executive Committee and the letter dated 12.04.2024 issued by the Chairman of the IRTC, terminating the petitioner from the post of Director, was null and void. It is stated that a series of litigations are pending before the civil courts in Palakkad and O.P.(C).No.2750 of 2024 arising from the civil suit is also pending before this Court. It is stated that the purpose of the present writ petition is to protract the litigation and to continue in the post of Director. W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025
2026:KER:139 7 It is also submitted that a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner as Crime No.196/2025 of the Kongad Police Station based on a complaint filed by a woman employee alleging that the petitioner had misbehaved with her. It is submitted that it is the above incident that has resulted in the proceedings initiated by the ICC. It is further submitted that even though Ext.P6 had been issued by the 4th respondent, no further proceedings have been initiated under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short 'POSH Act') by the respondents 4 and 5 and as such the proceedings by the ICC cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.
6. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner alleging mismanagement of the IRTC, and that action is being taken against him for being a whistleblower.
7. The 5th respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the 4th respondent forwarded the complaint submitted by the petitioner to the 5 th respondent, and the 5th W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 8 respondent had verified the complaint and found that an ICC has already been constituted under the POSH Act in the IRTC, and hence, the Local Complaints Committee (LCC) cannot issue any directions to the ICC or interfere with the proceedings of the ICC. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the LCC cannot entertain the complaint filed by the petitioner. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent, stating that the contentions of the respondent are contrary to the provisions of the POSH Act. It is contended that the LCC is to be constituted where the complaint is against the employer himself, and in the case at hand, the petitioner is the employer of the complainant, and hence it must be considered by the LCC and not the ICC.
8. Respondents 1 to 3 have filed an additional counter affidavit stating that there are more than 10 employees in the IRTC and the constitution of the ICC was fully justified. It is submitted that the petitioner and the complainant are employees of the IRTC, going by the Rules and Regulations produced as Ext.R3(a). The details of the W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 9 constitution of the ICC have also been explained in the affidavit. It is further submitted that the petitioner was terminated on 24.09.2024 pursuant to the order of the Munsiff Court vacating the order of injunction by virtue of which he was continuing in office, and one Sri.N.K.Sasidharan Pillai took charge as Director on 26.09.2024. It is submitted that on 16.10.2024, the Executive Committee had considered the office note of the Registrar and reconstituted the ICC. It is further submitted that based on the order in CMA 109 of 2024 of the District Court, Palakkad, the petitioner took charge as Director on 27.10.2024 and started taking revengeful action against all the employees, and he even denied the payment of salary to all the employees for nearly two months, which led to the strike of employees on 08.11.2024. It is further submitted that the claim of the petitioner that he had constituted another committee by issuing an office memorandum on 14.05.2024 and that the formation of a Committee on 16.10.2024 was not warranted is totally without any basis, and the order dated 14.05.2024 is a fabricated one. The W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 10 inherent evidence in the said order is pointed out to submit that an order dated 14.05.2024 could not have dissolved an ICC which was constituted on a later date on 16.10.2024. Even though several other factors are stated in the additional counter affidavit, it is not necessary to extract the same, since they may not be fully relevant for the disposal of this case.
9. Heard both sides, and I have perused the materials produced before this Court.
10. The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1. The IRTC is a Society registered under the provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, on 26.07.1995. As per the Memorandum of Association and the Rules and Regulations of the Society, it is to have a General Body, an Executive Committee and such other authorities as may be constituted by the General Body or the Executive Committee. The Society is promoted by Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (KSSP) and the General Body of the Society is constituted W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 11 with the Director and the Registrar of the IRTC, Executive Director and Secretary of the Parishad Production Centre, Secretary of IRTC Project Implementation Unit from time to time, members of the Executive Committee of the KSSP from time to time, not more than 10 members from among People's Science Activities nominated by the Executive Committee of KSSP from time to time, not more than 10 members from among scientists and academicians from Educational Institutions, Research Centres, Government agencies and such other organisations nominated by the Executive Committee of the KSSP. The President of the KSSP is to be the Chairperson of the General Body of IRTC. The Executive Committee of IRTC is constituted by the President of the KSSP, General Secretary of the KSSP, Treasurer of the KSSP, Director of IRTC, Registrar of IRTC, Executive Director of Parishad Production Centre, Secretary of the Parishad Production Centre, Secretary of IRTC Project Implementation Unit and not more than 15 other members from the General Body of IRTC. The President of KSSP is to be the Chairperson of the Executive Committee. It can be seen from Clause 23.2 W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 12 of the Memorandum of Association and Rules and Regulations thereunder that the Director is to be appointed by the Executive Committee of the Society, and he shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the IRTC. It is hence evident that the Director is an employee and cannot be treated as the employer. As such, the contention of the petitioner that the ICC has no power and it is for the LCC to consider issues relating to an allegation against the petitioner cannot be legally sustained.
11. ICC is to be constituted under Section 4 of the POSH Act. LCC is constituted under Section 6 of the POSH Act. Section 6 (1) specifically says that every District Officer shall constitute in the district concerned, a Committee to be known as the Local Complaints Committee, to receive complaints of sexual harassment from establishments where the Internal Committee has not been constituted due to having less than 10 workers or if the complaint is against the employer himself. Going by the documents produced, the IRTC has more than 10 workers. As already observed, the complaint is not against the employer, but against the W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 13 Director who has been appointed by the Executive Committee. As such, if there is an Internal Committee in place in an establishment, there is no role for the LCC. The only question that remains is whether there is a properly constituted Internal Complaints Committee in IRTC. According to the petitioner, on 14.05.2024, an ICC had been constituted by the petitioner when he was the Director. It is hence submitted that the ICC constituted on 16.10.2024 as per Ext.R3(e) cannot be treated as a validly constituted ICC. It is seen from the documents produced that, as per Ext.R3(b) Office Order dated 20.12.2022, an ICC was reconstituted. An office note had been put up on 04.05.2022 for reconstituting the ICC, as can be seen from Ext.R3(c). It is seen that in the office note, an endorsement had been made by the petitioner in the following manner;
"Provide the rule position to constitute the ICC."
12. Ext.R3(d) is an office note regarding the constitution of the ICC, which says that a note had been submitted to the Director on 16.05.2024, clarifying various W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 14 points that had been raised. When a note was submitted on 30.05.2024, the Director had objected to the same, saying that there were grave errors in the constitution. It is thereafter that a note was put up on 16.10.2024. As per Ext.R3(d), the then Director had directed the constitution of the ICC and proceedings had been issued on 16.10.2024 reconstituting the ICC. It is hence submitted that the contention of the petitioner that there was already an ICC constituted on 14.05.2024 is incorrect, and the document produced in support of the said contention is fabricated. I find considerable force in the above submission. Ext.R3(f) is the document relied on by the petitioner. Ext.R3(f) contains a note which says that ICC is constituted on 14.05.2024 by the Director and that the Director is a competent authority to constitute the ICC. It also says that the ICC constituted by the Registrar on 16.10.2024 has been dissolved herewith. If an ICC had been constituted on 14.05.2024, there was no necessity to dissolve an ICC that was constituted later, and there can be no such dissolution of a subsequently constituted ICC by an order that is dated earlier. As such, W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 15 Ext.R3(f) cannot be safely relied on. Faced with the situation, the petitioner has submitted as Ext.P9 another document, which is stated to be the printout of an email that had been sent by the petitioner to the Registrar on 14.05.2025. A reading of the mail would suggest that the petitioner has suggested a modification of the Committee suggested by the Registrar. The mail says that the notification must be issued as an Office Memorandum on that day. However, no specific order issued by the Registrar is available on record to show that there has been any constitution of the ICC on 14.05.2025. On the other hand, it would appear from the office note dated 16.10.2024 that even on 16.05.2024, clarifications had been sought, which had been provided on 30.05.2024.
Since a validly constituted ICC has been in office from 16.10.2024, the notice issued by the ICC cannot be found to be without jurisdiction. A procedure has been laid down in the Statute for dealing with complaints of this nature, and it is not proper for this Court to interfere at this stage, since all that the petitioner has been asked to do is to appear and W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 16 explain his position. The challenge to Ext.P1 hence fails, and the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner may submit his explanation, and the proceedings may continue in accordance with the law.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI JUDGE dsn/pn W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 17 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7354/2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO THE PETITIONER, DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO APPEAR BEFORE HER Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE ASI OF THE KONGAD POLICE STATION DATED 28.11.2024 Exhibit P3 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE STRIKES CONDUCTED BY THE EMPLOYEES ON 26.11.2024 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT SENT BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR Exhibit P6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DIRECTING THE DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER EXTS.PRODUCED ALONG WITH MEMO DT.25.6.25 EXHIBIT P2 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P2 IN WPC NO.
7354 OF 2025 EXHIBIT P4 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P4 IN WPC NO.
7354 OF 2025 EXHIBIT P5 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P5 IN WPC NO.
7354 OF 2025 EXHIBIT P6 ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P6 IN WPC NO.
7354 OF 2025 EXT.PRODUCED ALONG WITH IA.5/2025.
Exhibit P7 A COPY OF THE FIR NO. 542/2025 DATED 12.06.2025 HAS BEEN REGISTERED BY THE KONGAD POLICE STATION W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 18 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P7(a) TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF O.P.(C) 2750/2024 Exhibit P7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2024 AND IA NO. 2 OF 2024, FILED IN THE O.P. (C) 2750/2024 Exhibit P7(c) TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN IA NO. 1 OF 2024 IN O.P.(C) 2750/2024 Exhibit P7(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY AFFIDAVIT IN COUNTER IN IA NO. 1 OF 2024 IN O.P.(C) 2750/2024 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION DATED 06.07.2022 Exhibit P9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EMAIL DATED 14.05.2024 Exhibit P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRAR'S OFFICE ORDER DATED 16.10.2024 Exhibit P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENDORSED PRINT OF THE 14.05.2024 COMMUNICATION, BEARING THE NB Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF CONFIDENTIAL EMAIL DATED 06.07.2022 SENT BY ME TO THE CHAIRMAN OF IRTC REGARDING IRREGULARITIES AND FINANCIAL MISAPPROPRIATIONS Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23.12.2022 IN I.A. NO. 2667/2022 IN O.S. NO. 555/2022 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF, PALAKKAD, RECOGNISING THE PRIMA FACIE RIGHTS AND GRANTING INJUNCTION AGAINST ILLEGAL SUSPENSION Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF GD ENTRY DATED 27.04.2024 OF KONGAD POLICE STATION, RECORDING IMPLEMENTATION OF VACATION COURT ORDER DATED 24.04.2024 GRANTING POLICE PROTECTION TO RE- ENTER OFFICE Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.10.2024 IN CMA PASSED BY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD, RESTORING THE STAY AGAINST THE REMOVAL Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF CLARIFICATION NOTE DATED 23.09.2025 EXPLAINING THE ANOMALY IN EXHIBIT R3(F) W.P.(C)No.7354 of 2025 2026:KER:139 19 Exhibit P17 CHRONOLOGY OF MATERIAL EVENTS PREPARED BY PETITIONER FOR READY REFERENCE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS Exhibit R3(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SOCIETY Exhibit R3(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IRTC/111/013- AO/897/2022 DATED 20.12.2022 Exhibit R3(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE IN WHICH THE PETITIONER HAS MADE AN ENDORSEMENT WHICH ITSELF IS A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE WHICH CANNOT BE DENIED BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit R3(d) THE TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE DATED 16.10.24 Exhibit R3(e) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.IRTC/100/101/005/01/2024 DATED 16.10.2024 Exhibit R3(f) . THE TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT WHICH THE DIRECTOR HIMSELF SECRETLY PUBLISHED IN THE NOTICE BOARD DURING 1ST WEEK OF NOVEMBER Exhibit R3(g) THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID INTERIM ORDER DATED 31.12.2024 IN OP( C) NO.2750 OF 2024 FILED BY THESE RESPONDENTS Exhibit R3(h) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 09/05/2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Exhibit R3(i) THE TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 03/06/2024 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION