MP High Court Quashes ₹35 Lakh Compensation Awarded To POSH Complainant Pending Accused's Appeal
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order directing the Vice Chancellor of Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education (LNIPE) to pay compensation of ₹35 Lakhs to a Yoga Instructor, over allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace. Emphasizing that the right to appeal is a substantive right, the division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a Single Judge's order directing the Vice Chancellor of Lakshmibai National Institute of Physical Education (LNIPE) to pay compensation of ₹35 Lakhs to a Yoga Instructor, over allegations of sexual harassment at the workplace.
Emphasizing that the right to appeal is a substantive right, the division bench of Justice Anand Pathak and Justice Ashish Shroti noted that the VC's appeal against the findings of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report was pending adjudication before the departmental authority.
Therefore, the bench directed:
"it is apposite that first departmental authority should apply its mind in appeal where contentions raised by the appellant as well as reply, if any preferred by the respondents (specially respondent No.1) be met and reasonable/logical decision be taken. This way factual matrix of the case and the issues raised by the appellant as well as respondent No. 1 during the course of arguments would be examined threadbare, as the right of appeal is a substantive right which is required to be given to the authority concerned, so that on facts clarity may come to the fore".
Respondent no 1 was a Yoga Instructor (respondent no. 1) working at the LNIPE. In March 2019, she lodged a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act.
Based on the complaint, ICC initiated an inquiry and submitted a report with findings of alleged misconduct against the VC. Agrrieved, the VC preferred an appeal, which is still pending. However, no penal action was taken against the VC.
Meanwhile, the Yoga instructor filed a writ petition seeking multiple reliefs, including a grant of compensation from the VC and the State Government. The writ petition was allowed, and directions were passed to grant compensation of ₹35 Lakhs to be given by the VC to the Yoga Instructor. The State was also directed to pay compensation of ₹5 Lakhs for not registering the criminal case at the instance of the yoga instructor and dragging the investigation. The court had also imposed a penalty of ₹1Lakh on LNIPE for showing a casual attitude.
Aggrieved, the VC filed the present appeal arguing that his appeal was pending before the departmental authority and the single judge's order granting compensation could cause prejudice to him as it would support the assumption of his guilt.
Emphasizing that the right to appeal is a substantive right, the court set aside the single judge order and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for consideration.
Case Title: Dilip Kumar Dureha v Smt Anusha Deepak Tyagi, WA-2332-2025
For Appellant: Advocates Prashant Sharma and Upendra Yadav
For Respondent no 1: Advocate Yogesh Chaturvedi