2026 Supreme(All) 792

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW 
MANISH MATHUR, J.
Km. Sunita Devi - Petitioner
Versus 
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. State Tax Lko. And Others – Respondents 
WRIT - A No. - 9112 of 2025, Writ - A No. 9114 of 2025
Decided On : 20-04-2026

Internal complaints committee recommendations under the Act are mandatory. Disciplinary action against members performing quasi-judicial functions requires prima facie evidence of misconduct or extraneous motive; mere disagreement with the findings or errors in judgment are insufficient to warrant the extreme step of suspension from service.

Headnote:(A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Sections 11, 13, 18, 26 - U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 - Rule 4 - Disciplinary proceedings - Suspension of members of internal complaints committee - Recommendations issued by the committee upon completion of inquiry are mandatory in nature and not merely directory - The employer is bound to act upon the recommendations as the Act contemplates a concrete conclusion rather than a recommendatory opinion. (Paras 33, 35)

(B) Service Law - Quasi-judicial authorities - Disciplinary action - Initiation of proceedings against an official exercising quasi-judicial functions requires prima facie evidence of misconduct, extraneous motive, or recklessness - Mere error in judgment, wrong appreciation of facts, or passing an order that does not align with the employer’s wishes does not suffice to initiate disciplinary proceedings - Suspension of such officers without recording subjective satisfaction regarding serious misconduct is unsustainable in law. (Paras 54, 57, 62, 65)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, acting as members of an internal complaints committee, submitted a report exonerating an accused official. The authorities proceeded to suspend the petitioners, alleging they deliberately disregarded material evidence and protected the accused. The petitioners challenged these suspension orders, contending that their findings were the outcome of a quasi-judicial process which cannot be penalized merely for being unfavorable to the appointing authority.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the recommendations of the internal complaints committee are mandatory under the regulatory framework. Crucially, the court emphasized that officers exercising quasi-judicial functions cannot be subjected to disciplinary action for errors of law or fact. Such action is only permissible if there is clear evidence of corrupt motive or misconduct that is unbecoming of a public servant. The suspension orders were quashed for being cursory and lacking the requisite subjective satisfaction regarding the conduct of the members.

Issues: The main issues were whether the committee’s recommendations are mandatory or directory and whether the suspension of committee members for their findings complies with established disciplinary service rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the statutory scheme intended for committee reports to be final and binding to ensure institutional integrity. Furthermore, it affirmed that an independent and fearless quasi-judicial environment is protected by law, preventing the use of disciplinary proceedings as a retaliatory measure for unfavorable outcomes.

Result: Petitions allowed; suspension orders quashed.