The failure to follow procedural rules in the inquiry violated principles of natural justice, rendering the Internal Complaints Committee's report invalid.

JUDGMENT :

M.B. Snehalatha, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash Ext. P2 termination order dated 14.08.2025 and also to quash all adverse findings recorded against them and to set aside Ext.P3 report of Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the termination of the 1^st petitioner as per Ext. P2 order and the adverse consequences visited upon the 2^nd petitioner pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the ICC of the 5^th respondent is arbitrary and illegal and in gross violation of The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act for short) and according to the petitioners, the enquiry was conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) by violating the principles of natural justice. Neither the copy of the complaint nor the ICC report was supplied to them as required under the statute. It is further contended that the petitioners obtained a copy of the complaint only through the Right to Information Act, 2005 , and that too after the passing of Ext. P3 order. It was further contended that they were summoned for enquiry without serving a copy of the complaint; that they were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and the witnesses and denied the right to know as to who are the witnesses cited in the complaint nor they were permitted to examine their own witnesses. According to the petitioners, they did not get a chance of a fair trial, which constitutes violation of the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem.

3. Respondents 1 and 5 filed their statements denying the case of the petitioners. It was contended that the ICC, being a statutory fact-finding body, evaluated the testimony, assessed its consistency, and found sufficient basis to conclude that the petitioners were made aware of the nature of the allegations and were given an opportunity to respond. It was further contended that the termination of the petitioners was not arbitrary but a consequence of the findings of the ICC under the POSH Act, 2013.

4. The learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by Ext. P2 order, their remedy is to prefer an appeal as provided under Section 18 of the POSH Act. It was further contended that Exts.P2 and P3 are not amenable to challenge before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. The specific case of the petitioners is that there is violation of Rules 7(2), 7(3) and 7(4) of the POSH Act and the petitioners were not given copy of the complaint as mandated under the POSH Act and Rules and they were not permitted to cross examine the complainant and witnesses.

6. Section 11 (1) of the POSH Act reads as under:

“Inquiry into complaint - (1) subject to the provisions of S.10, the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, shall, where the respondent is an employee, proceed to make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the provisions of the service rules applicable to the respondent and where no such rules exist, in such manner as may be prescribed or in case of a domestic worker, the Local Committee shall, if prima facie case exist, forward the complaint to the police, within a period of seven days for registering the case under S.509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and any other relevant provisions of the said Code where applicable:

Provided that where the aggrieved woman informs the Internal Committee or the Local Committee, as the case may be, that any term or condition of the settlement arrived at under sub-section (2) of section 10 has not been complied with by the re