Employer Retains Right To Disciplinary Action Even After POSH Conciliation Settlement: Gauhati High Court

A Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that conciliation under Section 10(4) of the POSH Act bars only further inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee and does not prevent the employer from initiating independent disciplinary proceedings under the service rules in light of new evidence to ensure a safe workplace. Background Facts The employee was a senior officer of the Airports Authority of India. The complainant was a lady officer working under employee's supervision. The complainant lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against him, which was placed before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). During the ICC proceedings, both parties opted for conciliation due to workplace disturbance. A settlement was reached where they agreed not to work in proximity. Further, the complainant did not press for a full inquiry due to mental distress. The ICC also recorded that evidence was lacking. However, the complainant objected to this observation. She produced a screenshot of an objectionable message sent by the employee. The matter was remitted to the ICC, but it declined to reopen the proceedings due to Section 10(4) of the POSH Act. It states that once conciliation succeeds, no further inquiry shall be conducted by the Internal Committee or the Local Committee. However, the employer initiated independent departmental proceedings against the employee due to new evidence. Aggrieved, the employee challenged it before the High Court. A Single Judge quashed the departmental proceedings and removed the ICC's observation of lack of evidence. Aggrieved by the quashing of the disciplinary proceedings, the Airports Authority of India filed an intra-court appeal before the Division Bench. It was contended by the Airports Authority of India that the Single Judge exceeded the limits of writ jurisdiction by interfering with the factual findings of the ICC. It was further submitted that the ICC had declined to proceed further after conciliation and then a new material i.e. a screenshot of an objectionable message was produced by the complainant, which required independent departmental proceedings. On the other hand, it was argued by the employee that the ICC proceedings had attained finality after conciliation. It was further submitted that the Single Judge was justified in quashing the disciplinary proceedings. Findings of the Court It was observed by the court that the POSH Act is a minimum protective statute. Further, the ICC proceedings do not substitute disciplinary jurisdiction of the employer unless provided by the Service Rules. It was further observed that Section 10(4) of the POSH Act bars only the Internal Complaints Committee from conducting any further inquiry once a settlement is arrived at through conciliation. This bar does not extend to the employer's independent disciplinary jurisdiction, which flows from the service rules. Further the 2013 Act casts an obligation on the employer to ensure a safe workplace. It was held by the Division Bench that the bar under Section 10(4) of the POSH Act does not extinguish an employer's authority under the Service Rules to inquire into the misconduct of the employee. Reading Section 10(4) as a blanket bar would defeat the very purpose of ensuring safe workplaces. Thus, the part of the Single Judge's judgment which quashed initiation of the Departmental Proceedings against the employee was not sustainable and therefore, set aside by the Division Bench. The Departmental Proceedings initiated by the employer against the employee was held to be lawful, therefore, it was directed by the Division Bench to resume it from the stage at which it was stopped. With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India was partially allowed by the Division Bench. Case Title : Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen VSLL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 2 Case No. : WA NO.149 OF 2025 Counsel for the Petitioner : R. Dubey, Advocate, A.B. Kayastha, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : R. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. P. Phukan, AdvocateClick Here To Read/Download Order

Employer Retains Right To Disciplinary Action Even After POSH Conciliation Settlement: Gauhati High Court

Namdev Singh

Tags