The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of referring complaints of sexual harassment to the Internal Complaints Committee for a preliminary investigation and the limitation on the right to pursue a complaint on behalf of an aggrieved woman.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter-alia, impugning a “status report” dated 08.09.2015 (hereafter the impugned report) prepared by respondent no. 5, inter-alia, holding that the complaint of sexual harassment made by one Ms X (the real name is not mentioned to avoid any ignominy to the person concerned) was time barred.

2. The petitioner - who is the Presiding Officer of the Internal Complaints Committee (hereafter ICC) of respondent no. 2 at the Headquarters at Delhi - claims that the impugned report is wholly contrary to the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereafter the Act). According to her, the said report could only have been generated by ICC constituted under Section 4 of the Act.

3. It is also the petitioners grievance that the provisions of the Act are not being followed by respondent no. 2 inasmuch as respondent no. 2 has consistently failed to display at a conspicuous place the forms and the penal consequences of sexual harassment as well as the orders constituting the ICC. The petitioner also claims that the act of respondent no. 5 in submitting the impugned report rejecting the complaint of Ms X as time barred is mala-fide and was submitted with the sole object of protecting the officer (who was at the material time holding the post of Regional Director at Indore) accused of harassing Ms X.

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the controversy are as under:-

Respondent no. 2, National Institute of Public Co-operation & Child Development (hereafter the Institute) is an autonomous organisation, which is administratively controlled by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (hereafter MWCD), Government of India.

5. The Minister In-charge of MWCD is the ex officio Chairman of the Executive Council and the President of the Governing Body of the Institute.

6. The Institute has constituted ICCs at its Headquarters in Delhi as well as at the four regional centres at Bengaluru, Guwahati, Indore and Lucknow.

7. One Ms X who was engaged as a resource person for occasional work with the Regional Centre of the Institute at Indore sent an email dated 16.07.2015 complaining against the then Regional Director (Indore) of the Institute.

8. The said complaint was forwarded to respondent no. 4 (Director of the Institute) for appropriate action and to furnish a status report/comments to respondent no. 1 (MWCD). The said complaint was thereafter forwarded to respondent no. 5.

9. Respondent no. 5 sought the comments of the officer accused and thereafter forwarded his report - the impugned report - inter-alia stating that the complaint was time barred and no further action was taken pursuant to the said complaint.

10. The petitioner who appeared in person contended that the procedure adopted in dealing with the complaint of sexual harassment was wholly contrary to the provisions of the Act. She pointed out that in terms of second proviso to Section 9(1) of the Act, the ICC was empowered to extend the period of limitation. Thus, respondent no. 5 could not have rejected the complaint of Ms X as time barred.

11. Mrs. Bharathi Raju, learned counsel appearing for the Institute submitted that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 were applicable to the Institute. She contended that under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the Disciplinary Authority was required to form an opinion as to whether there were any grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a Government Servant, with a view to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings. She submitted that in cases of complaints of sexual harassment, the ICC would necessarily have to be the Inquiring Authority. However, in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority had not formed any opinion to commence the disciplinary proceedings and the report submitted by respondent no. 5