Absence Of Suspension Provision In PoSH Act Doesn't Bar Employer From Suspending Employee Facing Inquiry: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that even though the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act) does not expressly provide for suspension, an employer retains the inherent power to suspend an employee facing inquiry under the Act.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed,

“Despite the PoSH Act, not providing for the interim measure of suspension, an employer in exercise of its inherent rights, can suspend a person who is the subject-matter of an inquiry under the PoSH Act.”

The Court made the observation while dealing with a plea filed by the principal of Delhi University's Ramanujan College, challenging his suspension and the constitution of an ad hoc fact-finding committee in connection with complaints of sexual harassment.

Complaints alleging misconduct, including sexual harassment, were filed by faculty members against the petitioner. Acting on these complaints, the Deputy Registrar (Colleges), University of Delhi constituted an ad hoc fact-finding committee, which submitted a report indicating that the allegations were serious in nature and warranted further action.

Based on this report, the governing body of the college placed the petitioner under suspension pending inquiry.

The Court clarified that the PoSH Act does not deal with suspension as an interim measure. However, it held that this does not denude the employer of its power to suspend.

“The power of suspension lies with the College/University or the institution concerned, with respect to the services of a teacher, principal, or any other employee. This power, which is inherent to the office itself, may be exercised without there being a contractual or statutory stipulation to this effect. The employer or head of the institution, in furtherance of the responsibility vested with it, to administer the institution/organisation, may, if it is found appropriate, suspend an employee, in the larger interest of the organisation/institution,” it held.

Reliance was placed on R.P. Kapur v. Union of India and Anr. (1963) where a Five-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that an employer can suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his misconduct.

Similarly, in Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra (1967), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court also took note of the inherent power of an employer to suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his misconduct.

The Court further held that the power of suspension is an inherent power of the employer, traceable to the master-servant relationship itself, and where service rules and office regulations exist, it must be exercised in consonance with, and circumscribed by, those rules and regulations.

“The PoSH Act neither confers this power afresh, nor does it take it away. The answer to this question lies, in the first instance, in the plain text of the statute itself. Section 28 of the PoSH Act, which is the legislature's own declaration of the relationship between this Act and other laws, categorically provides that the provisions of the Act shall be “in addition to” and “not in derogation” of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.”

However, the Court cautioned that such inherent right to suspend the employee ought to be conducted with an application of mind.

“A general proposition that simpiciter declares suspension to be possible, without any, judicial review or a mechanism for checks and balances, would be de hors the principles of service law jurisprudence,” Court said.

Accordingly, the Court held that an employer can suspend an employee during the pendency of a PoSH inquiry, even in the absence of a specific provision under the Act.

However, examining the facts of the case, the Court found the suspension order to be stigmatic. It noted that the order referred to “serious misconduct and harassment”, which could create a prejudicial impression against the petitioner even before the conclusion of the inquiry.

Holding that suspension orders should not contain findings or language that cast stigma, the Court set aside the impugned suspension order, while granting liberty to the authorities to issue a fresh order in accordance with law.

Appearance: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Senior Advocate with Ms Shalini Singh, Ms Prashansika Thakur, Mr Lakshay Saini, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Mohinder JS Rupal, Mr. Hardik Rupal, Ms. Aishwarya Malhotra and Ms. Tripta Sharma Advocates for R-1. Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Jyoti Taneja, Mr. Shivam Malhotra and Mr. Pallav Arora, Advocates for R-2.

Case title: RS v. DU

Case no.: W.P.(C) 14760/2025

Click here to read order