Employer Can Impose Penalty Based On ICC Report Under POSH Act Without Separate Departmental Inquiry: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that an employer can impose a penalty on an employee based on the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act without conducting a separate departmental inquiry or issuing a formal charge-sheet. The Court observed that the ICC report constitutes an inquiry report under the statutory scheme, and requiring a second inquiry would amount to...
The Bombay High Court has held that an employer can impose a penalty on an employee based on the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act without conducting a separate departmental inquiry or issuing a formal charge-sheet. The Court observed that the ICC report constitutes an inquiry report under the statutory scheme, and requiring a second inquiry would amount to an impermissible duplication of proceedings.
A division bench of Justices R. I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna was hearing a writ petition filed by a professor of IIT Bombay challenging the order imposing compulsory retirement based on findings of sexual harassment recorded by the ICC. The petitioner argued that Section 13(3)(i) of the POSH Act requires action to be taken in accordance with service rules, which necessitates a formal inquiry and charge-sheet. It was further contended that in the absence of specific procedural rules under the IIT statutes, the CCS (CCA) Rules would apply, mandating a separate inquiry.
The Court noted that the Petitioner participated at every stage of the inquiry, which culminated in the issuance of the impugned Order. The record did not bear out even a single instance of violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Court examined Section 13 of the POSH Act and Rule 9 of the POSH Rules, noting that where allegations are proved, the employer is required to take action for misconduct either in accordance with service rules or in such manner as may be prescribed. It held that in the present case, the IIT Bombay Policy and Attendant Rules, framed under the statutory framework, provide the prescribed procedure, and expressly treat the ICC report as the inquiry report based on which disciplinary action can be taken.
The Court rejected the contention that CCS (CCA) Rules mandating a separate inquiry would apply, holding that the POSH Act constitutes a complete code for addressing sexual harassment at the workplace and that special provisions would prevail over general service rules. It further held that the statutory scheme does not contemplate a “double inquiry” and that insisting on a second inquiry after the ICC process would defeat the object of the legislation.
“The findings of a specialized fact finding body like the ICC, followed by the decision of the disciplinary committee, are pursuant to a full fledged inquiry wherein the Petitioner has duly and fully participated… Mr. Ramamurthy is not correct in submitting that a charge-sheet ought to be issued prior to commencement of a second stage inquiry…,” the Court observed.
The Court highlighted that 'procedure is the handmaiden of justice' which ought to be applied so as to subserve substantial justice. It observed that accepting the contentions of the Petitioner would amount to permitting a double inquiry on the very same subject matter, undermining the avowed object of special statutes like the POSH Act.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order imposing compulsory retirement, while observing that the petitioner may avail the statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with law.
Case Title: Arun A. Iyer v. Board of Governors, IIT Bombay & Ors. [Writ Petition No. 3224 of 2024]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom)142