Judge Dandabani granted Order of INTERIM STAY of the impugned summons in Case No. 3778 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the 4th respondent TN State Commission for Women, summoning pachiappa college principle In parking issue for college adv godson argued

Sekar Reporter

4 weeks ago

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
W P. No. of 2024
The Principal (1/ C)
Pachaiyappa’s College,
Pachaiyappa’s College Campus
Chennai – 600 030 Petitioner
vs

The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by its Principal Secretary
Department of Higher Education
Fort St George, Chennai- 600 009
The Director of Collegiate Education
Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai — 600 015
The Regional Joint Director of
Collegiate Education, Chennai Region
Chennai – 600 015
The Tamil Nadu State Commission of Women
Rep. by its Chairperson
Kalasa Mahal, Chepauk, Chennai — 600 005
Dr. R. Kungumapriya Assistant Professor Department of Zoology
Pachaiyappa’s College
Chennai – 600 030 Respondents
AFFIDAVIT OF PETITIONER

1,. Dr. Baby Gulnaz, aged about 58 years, daughter of Mr. Syed Kareem, Principal in-charge of the Petitioner College, having office at No. 113, Harrington Road, Pachaiyappa’s College Campus,
1 st page
Corrns : nil
PACHAIYAI)PA’S COLLEGE, CHENNAI-GOO
Chennai — 600 030, do hereby solemnly affirm ancl ginccrcly state as follows:

I state that I am the Principal in-chargc of
Pachaiyappa’s College, Poonamallec I-ligh Roacl, Shcnoy Nagar, Chetpet, Chennai — 600 030. I am well acquainted with the facts of the case.
I state that the Great Philanthropist viz., late Shri Pachaiyappa Mudaliar had executed a will dated 22.03.1794 for charities and thereafter a trust was established in his name viz., Pachaiyappa’s Trust to provide education to the poor students under the Management of said Trust Board. To achieve the founder’s object, there are several educational institutions run by the Management of Pachaiyappa’s Trust and also doing charities as per wishes of the testator. For its administration, a scheme decree . was framed by the Board of Revenue and thereafter approved by this Hon’ble Court (formerly called as Supreme Court of Madras) vide scheme dated 30.10.1832.
I state that in the year 1842, the Pachaiyappa’s trust Board established several educational institutions and it is a Public Charitable Trust. Presently, among other institutions, the trust administers 6 very famous colleges. Further, the trust owns several properties and generating income for the charities, more particularly to providing education to the downtrodden community people in the society as per the wishes of testator.
2 nd
PRINCIP
CHENNAI-GOO
j sfafe t%ät TTXßt is being managed and administered by the froth time fitne pet th4 Scheme Decree. 13111, in yct%t 201 g, there digpute among tbe trustees also other issues arose in the of administration. The Scheme Coutt of this COUtt h od appointed Mr. Justice P, Retired judge of this Eon ‘ble Court a sr interim Administrator to administct thc affairs of tbc trust and its educational institution, vidc ordct dated
14.06.2018 made in Application No. 2624 of 2018, Later. the
Learned Oudgc resigned and thcrcaftcr Administrator General and Official Trustee (AG & OT) had been appointed as Administrator vide Judgment of the Hon ble Division Bench dated 23.12-2020 made in O.S.A. No. 346 of 2019 & etc., batch of cases.
1. J state that now the Management of Pachaiyappa’s
  Trust and its Educational Institutions are under the control of the
  Administrator vim, Mr. Justice V. Parthiban, retired Judge of this
  Eon’ble Court, as appointed by the Hon ‘ble Division Bench of this
  Jdon’bJe Court vide Order dated 19.12.2023 in Rev. A. No. 116 of

2023 in O.S,A. No. 17 of 2022 and the Learned Judge is administering the Trust as per the Scheme decree as well as the Statutes for administration of trust affairs, including running and managing all educational institutions.

J state that Pachaiyappa’s College, Chennai is one of the numerous educational institutions established and
3 rd
PACIÆAIYAPPA’S COLLEGE,

administered by Pachaiyappa’s Trust Board. The college is affiliated to the University of Madras. It is a partly aided college.
I state that there are 2550 students studying in Shift-I
and 650 students in Shift-Il courses. The courses offered in Shift — I are partially aided by the Government. The courses offered in Shift Il are on self-finance basis.

I state that the 5th respondent Dr. R. Kungumapriya is working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Z0010U,
Pachaiyappa’s College, Chennai. Earlier, she was appointed as
Assistant Professor on 02.06.2014 in the Department of Z0010U,
C. Kandaswami Naidu College for Women, Cuddalore, College. Later, she was transferred to the petitioner’s college on 26.09.2017 and she has been continuing as such.
I state that on 26.07.2024, it is learnt that the 5 th respondent rode two wheeler vehicle into the restricted area in the college premises instead of parking it in the vehicle parking area. The security staff asked her to park the vehicle in the parking area. To this, she shouted at the security staff and spoke in disrespectful way by saying “Who are you”, “What are you”, “You don’t have the authority to do so”, etc.
I state that with regard to the aforesaid incident the 5 th respondent gave a complaint dated 26.07.2024 to the Principal incharge (the petitioner herein) alleging that the security personnel
4th
PACHAIYAPPA’S

5-
harassed her by not pcrmitting her to rnovc her vchicJc. frlovzcvcr, shc admitted that the security pcrgonncJ told her not to cntcr thc wicket gate (restricted area for movement of vehicle).

I statc that in relation to the above she met the Secretary of the college and the Secretary informed her that ‘Zhe should’ have parked the vehicle in the parking area not moved to the restricted area riding the vehicle. He also informed thet he will enquire into the issue by taking the matter to the College Committee.
I state that on 26.07.2024, an incident report was given to the management by the Supervisor of the security employed in the campus. He has said that the lady staff has violated the restrictions and without parking the vehicle in the parking area moved inside the wicket gate. He has also stated that on being asked to park the vehicle in the parking area the 5th respondent raised her voice and shouted at the security personnel concerned by saying “Who are you”, “What are you”, “You don’t have the authority to do so”, etc.
I state that the issue was considered by the College Committee in its meeting held on 30.07.2024. The Committee found that the 5th respondent was making as many varying allegations as possible in relation to the incident that happened.
The Committee was not convinced with her allegations especially
5th
in the light of the CCTV footages. The Committee accordingly closed the complaint preferred by the 5th respondent.
I state that in the meantimej the 5th respondent seemed to have lodged a complaint with G3, Police Station at Rilpauk, Chennai. In this regard, the police issued summons to the Secretary and the Principal. The Secretary of the college appeared before the police on 23.08.2024. As the Principal is a female the management decided not to send her to the Police Station and instead asked the Secretary to represent on behalf of her as well.
I state that the police took a written statement from the Secretary on that day with regard to the incident that happened.
I state in the meantime the 5 th respondent started spreading malicious and false complaints against the Principal and the Secretary of the College, Therefore, the College Committee vide resolution No, 18 dated 19.08.2024 decided to suspend her from service in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against her. The issue was picked up by the Association of Teachers at her instance and they started flashing distorted facts to the media.
6th page nil
PACHAIYAPPA’ COLLEGE, FAFNNA1-600 030.
I state that surprisingly, the Principal of the college received summons from the 4th respondent TN State Commission of Women (TNSC) in case No. 3778 of 2024 informing the Principal of the college that a complaint has been lodged by the 5th respondent against the Principal and she has been summoned to appear before the Commission for counselling in person on
12.08.2024 at 3pm. It was further informed in the summons that on failure to appear, the Commission will take the final decision in the absence of the Principal. The summons appeared to be dated 07.08.2024 and received by the Principal on
12.08.2024
1B. I state that since the time given was too short, the Principal was represented by a lawyer before the Commission. The lawyer appeared before the Commission and requested for tirne to respond to the summons issued to the Principal.
Thereafter, the 4th respondent Commission issued two separate summons dated 27.08.2024 to the Secretary and the Principal (both) asking them to appear on 02.09.2024. It was further stated as in the previous summons that a complaint has been lodged by the 5th respondent against the Secretary and the
Principal and they have been summoned to appear before the Commission for counselling in person on 02.09.2024 at 12noon. It was further informed in the summons that on failure to appear, the Commission will take the final decision in the absence of the
7th page nil
Principal. On 02.09.2024, the Secretary and the Principal wcrc represented by a lawyer before the Cotntnission, Thc lawyer appeared before the Conilüission and rcqucstcd for furnishing a copy of the cornplaint preferred by the 5th respondent. Howcvcr, that was not furnished. Therefore, the lawyer requested for some more time to respond to the summons.
It is respectfully submitted that as could be seen from the above narration of facts that the attempt by the 5th respondent to arm-twist the management of the college to succumb to her wishes and in that regard she using the mechanisms meant for lawful purposes as tools not to threaten or intimidate persons and authorities.
It is respectfully submitted that on a bare reading of the Tar-nil Nadu State Commission for Women Act, 2008, it is clear that the 4th respondent Commission lacks jurisdiction to enter into the domain of service disputes between the employer and employee and no summons can be issued with regard to the same. Thereafter, on 02.09,2024, the Chairperson of the 4th respondent addressed the media and threatened the Secretary and the Principal with consequences.
It is respectfully submitted that the impugned

summons in Case No. 3778 of 2024 issued by the 4th respondent
Commission dated 27.08.2024 are unconstitutional, without
8th page
Corms : nil
CHENNAI-GOO 030.
jurisdiction, arbitrary and illegal and liable to be set aside on the following among other grounds.
GROUNDS

A. Whereas the issue between the 5 th respondent employee and the petitioner Management is a service dispute between the employer and the employee, the 4 th respondent Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain complaints in relation the same, the impugned summons is without authority, unconstitutional and illegal.
B. Whereas the TN State Commission for Women Act, 2008, does not vest the Commission or its Chairperson the authority to decide service related disputes, the act of the Chairperson in threatening the petitioner goes well beyond the authority that has been given to the Commission and its Chairperson under the Act and therefore the impugned summons is without jurisdiction, unconstitutional and illegal.
C. Whereas the TN State Commission for Women Act, 2008, provides that the Commission, as a body, can only take up cases of violations of the provisions of the Constitution and other laws relating to the women to the authorities concerned, the impugned summons is without jurisdiction and unconstitutional and illegal.
9th page
Corrns •..nil
L

10-
D. In as much as no copy of the complaint was communicated to the petitioner by the Commission, the procedure that is being followed by the Commission is legally not tenable and the whole exercise of summoning the petitioner for counseling is in violation of principles of natural justice.
E. Whereas the Commission lacks jurisdiction to ask the petitioner to appear for counseling in person as no law in relation to the Commission provides for the same, the impugned summons is without the authority of law and hence illegal.
F. Whereas the TN State Commission for Women Act, 2008, does not provide for any counseling to be given either directly or indirectly by summoning parties, the impugned summons is without authority and illegal.
G. In as much as the petitioner institution being a private educational institution and as settled by the Hon’ble Courts that the right to take disciplinary action is one of the facets of right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the impugned summons is unconstitutional.
H. In view of the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution of India there is no scope for an external
10th page
Corrns : nil
11 –
agency like the 4 th respondent Commission to interfere in issues of this nature.
I. Whereas the Commission without furnishing a copy of the alleged complaint made by the 5th respondent on its own decided to issue summons to the Secretary and the Principal of the College without forming an opinion as to whether the Secretary and the Principal of the college in the given circumstances should be summoned at all, the impugned summons is without authority and illegal.
J. Even as the allegations of the 5th respondent in its entirety do not attract the provisions relating to the harassment or sexual harassment, the impugned summons is illegal.
K. Further, it is always within the realm of the disciplinary authority to disapprove any conduct which they find as improper and the same can never be taken as harassment or sexual harassment.
L. Neither any notice nor opportunity of hearing was given before issuing the impugned summons.

Having left with no other alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner humbly approaches this Hon’ble Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal, Law is well settled that the High Courts while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 have the power to reach
1 I th page
Corrns : nil

12 –
injustice wherever found and mould the relief according to the peculiar and complicated requirements of the country. The petitioner states that she has not filed any Writ Petition or instituted any other proceedings in any Court on this subject matter.

In the above circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI calling for the records relating to the impugned summons in Case No. 3778 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the 4th respondent TN State Commission for Women, summoning the petitioner for counseling, QUASH THE SAME, and pass such further or other suitable Order / Orders as this Hon ‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and thus render Justice.
It is respectfully submitted that the summons issued by the . Commission, apart from lacking in jurisdiction, is also a malafide exercise of power and abuse of its authority. It is respectfully submitted that on a bare reading of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women Act, 2008, it is clear that the 4 th respondent Commission lacks jurisdiction to enter into the domain of service disputes between the employer and employee and no summons can be issued with regard to the same. The TN State Commission for Women Act, 2008, does not provide for any counseling to be given either directly or indirectly by summoning parties and therefore the impugned summons is without authority and illegal. Unless this I-Ion’ble Court by way of an interim
12 th page
Corrns : nil

13-
order stays the summons issued to the petitioner, he would be put hardships.

For the above reasons, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an Order of Ad
INTERIM STAY of the impugned summons in Case No. 3778 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the 4th respondent TN State Commission for Women, summoning the petitioner for counseling, and all proceedings in furtherance thereof, pending disposal of the Writ Petition, and pass such further or other suitable Order / Orders as this Hon ‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, and thus render Justice.
The petitioner further submits that she does not have in hand the original summons impugned in the Writ Petition. However, photocopy of the same is filed herewith. •It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to DISPENSE WITH the production of the original order impugned summons in Case No. 3778 of 2024 dated 27.08.2024 issued by the 4th respondent TN State Commission for Women, and thus render Justice.
Solemnly affirmed and
CHENNAI-600 signed her name in my

presence at Chennai on this the 3rd day of September 2024 ADVOCATE: CHENNAI
13th & Last page
Corrns : nil