A transfer and warning send the wrong message to women in the railways
In the Salem Division of Tamil Nadu, a woman assistant loco pilot's formal complaint against a superior officer has exposed a troubling gap between institutional process and institutional justice. An Internal Complaints Committee confirmed the assault, the accused accepted responsibility, yet Southern Railway answered a proven offense with a transfer and a warning — a response that raises ancient questions about who institutions are built to protect. The case now waits before the Divisional Railway Manager, carrying with it the weight of every woman who has entered a male-dominated workplace and wondered whether the rules would hold for her.
- A chief loco inspector lured a woman assistant pilot to an isolated office under false pretenses and sexually assaulted her — a premeditated act confirmed by the railway's own investigation.
- Despite the accused accepting responsibility and the ICC ruling unambiguously against him, Southern Railway's response amounted to a relocation and a written warning, leaving colleagues and the victim stunned.
- The victim is fighting back through formal appeal, invoking Sections 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to insist the act be recognized as aggravated assault — not dismissed as incidental contact.
- India's national loco pilots union has written directly to Southern Railway's general manager, calling the punishment a conscience-shocking failure that endangers every woman working on the railways.
- The case now rests with the Divisional Railway Manager, and its outcome will either reinforce or challenge the perception that sexual misconduct in Indian Railways carries no meaningful consequence.
On September 13, 2025, a woman assistant loco pilot at the Erode depot was called to an isolated first-floor office by Chief Loco Inspector T Selvaraj, ostensibly to renew a certificate. What followed was a deliberate assault — he touched her head, shoulder, thigh, hip, and lips without consent, and she had to physically struggle to leave the room.
She filed a complaint. The Internal Complaints Committee investigated, the accused accepted what he had done, and the committee's findings were unambiguous: the charges were proved. Yet Southern Railway's response was to transfer Selvaraj from Erode to Coimbatore and issue a warning. No suspension, no dismissal, no criminal referral.
The victim refused to accept this framing. In her appeal to the Divisional Railway Manager, she rejected the characterization of the incident as 'mere touching,' invoking Sections 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita to argue that what occurred constituted aggravated sexual harassment and assault with intent to outrage her modesty. She stressed that Selvaraj had planned the encounter, choosing a location where no one else would be present.
The All India Loco Running Staff Association amplified her appeal, writing to Southern Railway's general manager. Union Central Working President L. Mony described the outcome as a decision that 'shocks the conscience,' warning that a transfer and a warning send a damaging message to women navigating an industry already dominated by men.
The case now sits with the Divisional Railway Manager. What the administration decides next will reveal whether Indian Railways treats proven sexual assault as a serious offense — or whether a change of depot remains its acceptable answer.
On September 13, 2025, a woman assistant loco pilot at the Erode depot in Tamil Nadu's Salem Division was alone in an office, taking an examination for an orientation course. A chief loco inspector named T Selvaraj called her there under the pretense of renewing her certificate. What followed was an assault she would spend months fighting to have properly named and punished.
Selvaraj touched her head, shoulder, thigh, hip, and lips without consent. The woman struggled to escape and left the office. She filed a complaint. An Internal Complaints Committee investigated and, in its fact-finding report, confirmed the charges against Selvaraj. He accepted what he had done. The committee's conclusion was unambiguous: the allegations were proved.
But the punishment was not. The Southern Railway transferred Selvaraj from Erode to Coimbatore and issued him a warning. That was all. No suspension, no dismissal, no criminal referral—just a move to another depot and a note in his file.
The woman appealed the decision to the Divisional Railway Manager. The All India Loco Running Staff Association, the union representing loco pilots across the country, wrote to the general manager of Southern Railway in protest. L. Mony, the union's Central Working President, called the outcome a decision that "shocks the conscience" of railway staff. In his email, he named the accused directly and described what had happened: "An attempt to rape a lady Assistant Loco Pilot of the Erode depot by Chief Loco Inspector T Selvaraj, which was proved before the ICC, has resulted in a mere warning and a simple transfer to another depot."
The woman's own appeal went further. She rejected the framing of the incident as "mere touching" or casual physical contact. Under India's criminal law—specifically Sections 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita—what happened to her constituted aggravated sexual harassment and assault with intent to outrage her modesty. She emphasized that Selvaraj had planned the encounter, deliberately calling her to an office on the first floor of the Crew Booking Office where he knew no one else would be present. She had not simply been touched; she had been cornered, assaulted, and forced to fight her way out.
The union's position was clear: the punishment did not fit the crime. A transfer and a warning send the wrong message to women working in India's railways—an industry dominated by men, where female employees already navigate significant barriers. The decision, the union argued, reflects how the administration views its female workers and their safety. The victim, in her appeal, said the ICC had handled the matter lightly, treating a direct assault on her dignity as something minor.
As of now, the case sits with the Divisional Railway Manager, waiting for a response to the victim's appeal. The union has called for the general manager's intervention. What happens next will signal whether the railways take sexual assault seriously or whether a transfer and a warning remain the cost of such an offense.
Citações Notáveis
An attempt to rape a lady Assistant Loco Pilot of the Erode depot by Chief Loco Inspector T Selvaraj, which was proved before the ICC, has resulted in a mere warning and a simple transfer to another depot. It sends a disturbing signal to women workers.— L. Mony, Central Working President of the All India Loco Running Staff Association
The incident was never a mere touching or physical contact towards me; rather, it constituted aggravated sexual harassment and assault with intent to outrage my modesty, as defined under Sections 74 and 75 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.— The victim, in her appeal to the Divisional Railway Manager
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why does a transfer and warning feel so inadequate here?
Because the committee itself proved the assault happened. Selvaraj admitted it. The ICC didn't say "we're not sure what occurred." It said the charges are proved. Once you've crossed that threshold, moving someone to another depot looks like you're protecting him, not holding him accountable.
The victim mentions this was planned. What does that add?
It removes any possibility of a moment of poor judgment. He called her to an empty office knowing exactly what he was doing. That's premeditation. It's the difference between a mistake and a choice.
Why is the union speaking up if the victim has already filed an appeal?
Because the union represents all the women in those roles. If this is how the system responds to a proved assault, every woman in the railways is watching. The union is saying: this sets a precedent we cannot accept.
What does the victim mean by "aggravated sexual harassment and assault"?
She's invoking the criminal law definition, not the internal disciplinary one. She's saying this isn't a workplace conduct issue—it's a crime. The ICC treated it as the former. She's arguing it should be treated as the latter.
Is there any indication of what might happen next?
Not yet. The Divisional Railway Manager has her appeal. The union has written to the general manager. Both are asking for intervention. Whether that means a harsher penalty, a criminal referral, or something else—that's still unresolved.