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 act upon the ICC report, and aggrieved parties have the right of appeal.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to set aside and quash the order dated August 4, 2016 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated November 18, 2016 passed by the appellate authority of the respondent no. 1 Bank.

2. A complaint was made by the respondent no. 2 on September 8, 2014 against the petitioner alleging sexual harassment made by the petitioner. The complaint was examined by the Internal Complaint Committee (for short “ICC”) who filed a report dated October 24, 2014. The petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court being WP 1021(W) of 2016. After taking note of the fact that the petitioner has responded to the notice pertaining to sexual harassment by his reply dated April 18, 2015, a coordinate bench of this court by an order dated February 2, 2016 passed in WP 1021(W) of 2016 directed the bank to conclude the matter by forwarding a reasoned decision to the petitioner before the adjourned date.

3. Pursuant to the said order another enquiry was conducted by the ICC which submitted its report on July 16, 2016. ICC in its report dated July 16, 2016 made a recommendation to the appropriate authority of the bank to take a decision on the findings contained in the said report. The disciplinary authority by an order dated August 4, 2016 imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits i.e., pension and/or provident fund and gratuity and without disqualification from future employment. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority against the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority by an order dated November 18, 2016 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.

5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority inflicted the penalty of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner without initiating any disciplinary proceedings in terms of the service regulations governing the service of the petitioner. He, further, contended that the report of the ICC is a mere preliminary investigation report and no penalty can be imposed without initiating any disciplinary action in terms of the service rules. He contended that the findings of the ICC cannot be sustained in the eye of law as the ICC did not follow the modified policy of the respondent bank on Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act, 2013) (for short “the 2013 Act”) while undertaking the said enquiry. He further contended that the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are unreasoned and nonspeaking and as such the same are liable to be set aside and quashed by this court. He also contended that the modified policy on sexual harassment provides that after the report is submitted by the ICC, the disciplinary authority has to initiate disciplinary proceedings after issuing chargesheet and holding an enquiry by an Inquiry Officer as per the service rules.

6. Per contra, Mr. Dutt learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1 bank contended that the ICC report cannot be said to be a mere preliminary investigation report but the same shall be treated as findings in a disciplinary enquiry against the delinquent employee and the disciplinary authority shall act on such report accordingly. In support of such contention he placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Medha Kotwal Lele and Others vs. U.O.I. and Others, AIR 2013 SC 93.

7. He further contended that in spite of being served with the notice of hearing the petitioner did not attend the hearing before the appellate authority and as such the appellate authority had no other alternative but to decide the appeal ex-parte. He contended that the petitioner did not challenge the ICC report by preferring an appeal as per the