Retaliation After Sexual Harassment Complaint: Madras High Court Quashes Charge Memos Against Woman Employee

In a strongly worded judgment, the Madras High Court recently held that the Railway Employees’ Cooperative Credit Society in Chennai treated a woman employee’s sexual harassment complaint “in a very casual manner” and failed at every stage to protect her from workplace misconduct, ultimately concluding that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her amounted to victimisation.

The bench of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, while disposing of four connected writ petitions, recorded that the society repeatedly failed to discharge its statutory duty to provide a safe work environment and comply with the legal framework laid down for redressing sexual harassment complaints. Court said the lapse was not merely procedural but reflected a lack of seriousness in addressing entrenched workplace harassment.

The employee joined the society in 1994 and served there for nearly three decades. According to the judgment, J. Nagakesari, who was assistant secretary of the society, began sexually harassing her in the late 1990s. She eventually made an oral complaint to the chairman in April 2001, fearing reprisal due to his seniority. Court noted that while the chairman initially restricted Nagakesari’s powers, he was later reinstated with full administrative authority without a proper inquiry having been completed.

Over the next few years, three internal enquiry committees were formed but court found their constitution and functioning to be flawed. One panel had only male members; another was headed by the society’s own advocate; and a third repeated membership from earlier committees, with an NGO representative who admitted unfamiliarity with the legal standards governing sexual harassment inquiries. None complied with the Supreme Court’s Vishaka guidelines on workplace harassment, which lay down the minimum standards for such inquiries in the absence of statutory machinery.

Parallel to these internal processes, a criminal case was registered against Nagakesari in April 2003 under Sections 354 (outraging modesty of a woman) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code [corresponding to Section 74 and Section 351 (2)/(3) of the BNS]. The trial court convicted him, but he was acquitted on appeal; a revision petition was pending at the time of his death.

Between 2003 and 2004, the society issued four major penalty charge memos against the employee, alleging misconduct, insubordination, dereliction of duty and falsification of records, and placed her under suspension in March 2004. These disciplinary actions, court said, lacked proper basis and timing and bore the imprint of retaliatory intent.

The National Commission for Women (NCW), which later conducted its own investigation, examined 21 witnesses and documents and concluded that the employee had indeed suffered sexual harassment at the workplace and that the employer failed to follow the required safeguards. The commission recommended action against the perpetrator and a review of disciplinary action against the complainant.

In its judgment, the high court agreed with the NCW’s findings and the inferences that flowed from the long sequence of departmental action against the employee.

“The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the employee are victimisation and fallout of the employee who had chosen to question the sexual harassment before all the authorities and pursue the same aggressively,” court said.

By the time the matter reached final hearing, the employee had attained superannuation on May 31, 2023. The society continued to resist paying her retirement dues, even as the disciplinary proceedings lingered. Court rejected any attempt to prolong such proceedings post-retirement and held that they had lapsed in law.

In its operative directions, court declared that she had suffered sexual harassment and that the management failed in its duty to act appropriately at all stages. The charge memos issued between 2003 and 2004 were to be treated as lapsed, and the employee was to be deemed retired with effect from her date of superannuation.

Court ordered that all retirement benefits be paid to her with interest at six per cent per annum from the date of superannuation until payment. It also directed that she be paid 60 per cent of back wages for the entire period during which she was kept under suspension, after adjusting subsistence allowance already paid, to be disbursed within eight weeks, failing which the amounts would carry interest at nine per cent per annum.

Case Title: The Railway Employees Cooperative Credit Society Ltd vs. The Appellate Authority, Tamil Nadu Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act and Others

Judgment Date: February 10, 2026

Bench: Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy