Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R. I. CHAGLA, ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
Arun A. Iyer - Petitioner
Versus
The Board Of Governors, Indian Institute Of Techcnology - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 3224 OF 2024
Decided On : 24-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges posh compulsory retirement order. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. timeline of posh complaint, icc inquiry, and disciplinary actions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. ccs rules mandate formal charge-sheet after posh icc report. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. posh icc report valid inquiry; policy prevails over ccs. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 5. icc report constitutes first-stage inquiry; natural justice complied. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 6. posh section 13 allows action per iit policy, not ccs. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54) |
| 7. no double inquiry required; charges non-framing not fatal. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59) |
| 8. precedents affirm posh special procedure over general rules. (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 9. special posh law prevails; appeal remedy available. (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 10. petition dismissed; liberty to pursue statutory appeal. (Para 68 , 69) |
JUDGMENT :
Advait M. Sethna, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable with the consent of the parties.
2. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the substantive reliefs as set out in prayer clauses (a) to (c) of the Petition. However, Mr. Ramamurthy would urge this Court to remand the proceedings to the Internal Complaints Committee / Disciplinary Authority, for conducting a fresh inquiry before imposing any major penalty on the Petitioner.
3. The Petitioner in the present proceedings is working in the capacity of a Professor in the department of the Humanities and Social Sciences in the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (“IIT Bombay”). The Respondent No.4 is the original complainant who preferred a complaint alleging misconduct against the Petitioner.
4. These proceedings confront us with an interesting issue as to whether the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the Petitioner pursuant to the inquiry conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee constituted under the POSH Act and Rules would necessarily entail a separate inquiry, with reference to the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and its applicability in the given factual matrix. This is to be contextually tested when there is a specific mechanism and procedure prescribed for taking action qua misconduct viz. sexual harassment at workplace, contemplated under the aegis of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act” for short), POSH Rules, dovetailed with provisions under special statutes such as the Indian Institute of Technology Act, (IIT Act) IIT Bombay Policy/Attendant Rules. Considering the reliefs sought and the arguments advanced we are not, at this stage, delving in to the merits of the allegations against the Petitioner.
Factual Matrix:-
5. Certain facts which are necessary for adjudication of this Petition are as under.
6. A complaint dated 22 March 2023 was filed by Respondent No.4 with the Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC” for short) of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 against the Petitioner. This was in regard to instances of sexual harassment as alleged against the Petitioner by Respondent No.4, between the period March 2022 to September 2022.
7. A report dated 11 December 2023 of the ICC was issued, based upon the complaint. An initial fact finding inquiry was conducted. The report duly recorded the summary of allegations; complainant’s statement; summary of Petitioner’s statement; summary of Petitioner’s defence; summary of statement of complainant’s two witnesses; summary of statement of Petitioner’s witnesses; cross-examination of the said witnesses.
8. The said report dated 11 December 2023 recorded the findings of the ICC. Based upon the detailed findings recorded therein, the ICC recommended imposition of major penalty of the Petitioner’s removal from service.
9. It was on 4 January 2024 that the above report of the ICC was duly served upon the Petitioner and i
ICC inquiry under POSH Act deemed departmental inquiry for sexual harassment; no separate CCS (CCA) Rules inquiry required for major penalty when institute policy prescribes compliant procedure; spec....
The inquiry by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) is a full-fledged enquiry, and the recommendations of the ICC report, if finalized, are binding upon the employer. The employer is obligated to ....
The Internal Complaints Committee must conduct inquiries properly as mandated by law, ensuring timely redressal of complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace.
The terms and conditions of employment of both the petitioner and the respondent No.7 crystallized with the acceptance of the appointment letter dated March 25, 2013 in case of the applicant/writ pet....
Removal of service - Sexual harassment at work place - Regular enquiry conducted by the ICC - No disciplinary enquiry is necessary and based upon ICC enquiry officer’s report, the respondents have ri....
The jurisdiction of the Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act extends beyond the respondent's workplace, allowing for inquiries at the aggrieved woman's workplace, thus upholding the Act's....
It is also settled law that if the rule requires something to be done in a particular manner it should be done either in the same manner or not at all.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
