Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Facebook message in Dr. A. Vadivel vs The Chairman on 11 April, 2022Matching Fragments
6. The Internal Complaints Committee requested the third respondent to summon the Writ Petitioner in order to furnish the copy of the complaint sent by Email to ascertain the veracity of the complaint. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner appeared before the Internal Complaints Committee on 11.07.2016 and was served with the hard copy of E-mail complaint, dated 21.06.2016. On 11.07.2016, the petitioner anticipating the reason for summoning him, had come prepared with a report of 36 pages containing messages supposed to be in between the complainant Ms. Sheela and Mr. Surendranath and complaint of Ms.Ponmeni and her father on the same day. The writ petitioner appeared before the Internal Complaints Committee and gave his version with regard to the allegations containing in the complaint. Thereafter, preliminary inquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee on 11.07.2016 revealed that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and that the complaint deserved an inquiry as per the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the Internal Complaints Committee required the complainant Ms. Sheela to give her complaint in writing and the complainant also submitted the written complaint on 19.07.2016. The fourth respondent furnished the copy of evidence submitted by the complainant in the form of WhatsApp messages, Facebook Messages and audio clippings of the telephonic conversation in between the petitioner and the complainant and a copy of the written complaint submitted on 19.07.2016 to the Writ Petitioner on 26.07.2016 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and sought his explanation and the Writ Petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 05.08.2016. Subsequent to the receipt of reply from the petitioner, the Internal Complaints Committee conducted an inquiry on 02.09.2016 and submitted its report dated 20.10.2016 wherein it is stated that the petitioner had sexually harassed her in his office cabin and in the Hotel and had intimidated Ms. Sheela by threatening to expose their affair and recommended for strict action against the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner was not given the copy of the complainant is denied as false. Initially, the petitioner denied relationship with Sheela. Subsequently, during inquiry accepted the acts but has taken a defence that the relationship is with mutual consent. The respondents submitted that the Internal Complaints committee has acted in compliance of the principles of natural justice and has complied with the provisions of Act. The complainant expresses her inability to appear in person on account of threats which was facing from the petitioner and his companions and therefore, the Internal Complaints committee accepted her request and dispensed with the personal appearance before the Internal Complaints Committee. The respondents have also submitted that the petitioner was deliberately making false accusations against the members of the Internal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Complaints Committee in order to intimidate the members of Internal Complaints Committee and scuttle the entire inquiry process. The preliminary inquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee on 11.07.2016 revealed serious charges against the petitioner, the office of the Director NITT required the Internal Complaints Committee to proceed ahead with inquiry process. The complainant also belongs to SC community and in spite of the same the petitioner is playing with Caste Card in order to malign and discredit the entire enquiry process. As regards the written statement given by Anandkumar, the respondents submitted the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the accused is independent and the statement of Anandkumar was not relied upon while arriving at the conclusion of the charges. Even though, Anandkumar was listed as prosecution witness, he was not summoned for the inquiry as he had addressed representation to the Internal Complaints Committee giving his version of events and asking the Internal Complaints Committee not to divulge the contents of his representation either to the complainant or to the writ petitioner. Therefore, Internal Complaints Committee had decided not to relay upon the statement of the Anandkumar. Therefore, the question of serving the copy of statement given by P.Anandkumar does not arise. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Heard Mr. Vijayan, Senior Counsel for Mr. R. Ramachandran for the petitioner and Mr. Sankaranarayan Additional Solicitor General for Mrs. Maria Roseline for the respondents.
10. The contention of the petitioner is that the complaint was not preferred by the complainant and the same was authored and send by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Dr. S. Surendarnath, who is a third person. The same cannot be considered a compliant in writing as required by section 9(1) of the Act. Section 9(2) of the Act states that, “Where the aggrieved woman is unable to make a complaint on account of her physical or mental incapacity or death or otherwise, her legal heir or such other person as may be prescribed may make a complaint under this section.” The respondents denied the said contention and submitted that the said Dr. S. Surendarnath had preferred an email complaint on 21.06.2016 and based on the complaint the ICC contacted the complainant and only after the complainant substantiated the charges by producing evidences, the ICC decided to summon the writ petitioner. Then the ICC requested the third respondent to summon the writ petitioner in order to furnish the copy of the complaint sent by Email to ascertain the veracity of the complaint. The petitioner appeared before the Internal Complaints Committee on 11.07.2016 and was served with the hard copy of E-mail complaint, dated 21.06.2016. On 11.07.2016, the petitioner anticipating the reason for summoning him, had come prepared objection containing 36 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis pages messages supposed to be in between the complainant Ms. Sheela and Dr. Surendranath and complaint of Ms. Ponmeni wife of Dr. Surendranath and her father on the same day. The writ petitioner appeared before the ICC and gave his version with regard to the allegations containing in the complaint. Since in preliminary inquiry on 11.07.2016 revealed that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and that the complaint deserved an inquiry as per the provisions of the Act, then the complainant submitted her written complaint on 19.07.2016. The fourth respondent furnished the copy of evidence submitted by the complainant in the form of WhatsApp messages, Facebook Messages and audio clippings of the telephonic conversation in between the petitioner and the complainant and a copy of the written complaint submitted on 19.07.2016 to the writ petitioner on 26.07.2016 and sought his explanation and the writ petitioner has also submitted his explanation on 05.08.2016. From this it would be evident that the written complaint as required under section 9(1) is submitted on 19.07.2016 and the writ petitioner was served with the copy of the same on 26.07.2016.