The Internal Complaints Committee must conduct inquiries properly as mandated by law, ensuring timely redressal of complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. B. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. R.P. Kakoti, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. A.B. Dey, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Inquiry Report dated 27.06.2022 of the Inquiry Committee constituted vide the communication dated 28.03.2022 as well as the e-mail dated 26.08.2022 issued by the Chairperson of the Internal Complaints Committee (for short, “the ICC”).

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are narrated herein under.

BREIF FACTS OF THE CASE

4. The complainant alleging that the Petitioner had sexually harassed her, is referred to as “X”.

5. X filed an FIR before the All Women Police Station, Guwahati City, which was registered as All Women P.S. Case No. 130/2014 under Section 376(2)(b)/506 of the Indian Penal Code. This FIR was lodged on 11.12.2014. Basing on the said allegations, X also submitted a complaint on 16.12.2014 before the Presiding Officer, Women's Complaint Committee of the Respondent No. 1. On 19.12.2014, ICC decided that since the matter was under trial and sub-judice before a competent Court, no action could be taken on X’s complaint. However, the ICC recommended certain welfare measures be provided to X as per Section 12(1) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short, “the Act of 2013”). Apart from that, the ICC made certain recommendations i.e. to transfer X to any other workplace, or grant leave to X up to the period of 3 (three) months, or grant such other relief to the X as may be prescribed.

6. It is further seen from the records that the Director of the Respondent No. 1 had advised the ICC to consult a higher legal authority about the role of ICC in handling such matters and as such, in a meeting held on 27.04.2015, the ICC again resolved that as the matter is sub-judice and beyond the jurisdiction of the ICC to take any action, the matter may be referred to the next higher State authority, i.e. the Assam State Commission for Women; District Women Cell, Kamrup (Rural).

7. The record further reveals that immediately upon receipt of the complaint submitted on 16.12.2014, the Petitioner was put under suspension vide an order dated 17.12.2014. He was also arrested, but was allowed to go on bail on 16.03.2015. It further appears from the records that on 15.06.2015, a show cause notice was issued enclosing therewith the Statement of Allegations against the Petitioner and asking the Petitioner to submit a statement of defence. The Petitioner thereupon challenged the said initiation of the departmental proceedings by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3827/2015, and the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 25.06.2015 while issuing notice stayed the show cause notice dated 15.06.2015. It further appears that the stay order thereupon was continued from time to time. It so happened that the show cause notice which was issued by the Respondent No. 1 dated 15.06.2015 was recalled, and the Petitioner therefore withdrew the writ petition, being WP(C) No. 3827/2015 on 31.10.2016.

8. It is also very pertinent to take note of that the Petitioner simultaneously also challenged the suspension order by filing a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 2229/2015. The said suspension order was set aside by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 28.07.2017 and the Petitioner was directed to be reinstated in service in his substantive post of Profes