2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 164097

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Ravindra V. Ghuge, Ashwin D. Bhobe, JJ
Shyam Bihari – Appellant
Versus
Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 11696 OF 2025

The requirement for a 'senior level' presiding officer in an internal complaints committee refers to the officer's grade, not their rank relative to the accused. Furthermore, a challenge to the constitution of a tribunal is barred by the doctrine of waiver if raised after participating in proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - Sections 4, 11, 13 and 18 - Constitution of Internal Complaints Committee - Requirement of seniority - Whether presiding officer must be senior in rank to the delinquent employee - Language of the statute requires presiding officer to be a woman employed at a senior level, without specifically mandating seniority over the accused officer - Office memoranda clarify that there is no bar to the chairperson being junior to the charged officer. (Paras 14, 17, 19)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Doctrine of waiver and acquiescence - Participation in inquiry proceedings without protest - Petitioner participated in inquiry proceedings and only challenged the composition of the committee after receiving unfavorable outcomes - Raising objections at a belated stage after taking a calculated chance during proceedings is not permitted - The principle of waiver applies where a party does not raise contentions regarding the constitution of a tribunal before having participated in the process. (Paras 23, 27, 29)

Facts of the case:
A medical officer filed a petition challenging the memorandum of charges, disciplinary notice, and the investigative report produced by the complaints committee formed under statutory provisions protecting women from harassment. The challenge was primarily based on the composition of the committee, alleging that the presiding officer was not senior enough in rank and that other members had potential biases or lacked required qualifications under the relevant statute. The petitioner had participated in the entire inquiry process without raising these objections.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the statutory requirement for a 'senior level' woman officer does not imply that she must be senior in rank to the delinquent officer. It further concluded that the petitioner, having participated in the entire inquiry process without any demur, was barred by the principle of waiver from challenging the committee's constitution after an unfavorable result. The court emphasized that the availability of a statutory appellate remedy and the failure to raise timely objections precluded intervention under extraordinary jurisdiction.

Issues: The main issues were whether the composition of the complaints committee violated statutory provisions regarding seniority and whether a challenge to the tribunal's constitution is maintainable after the party has already participated in the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that literal interpretation of the statute is paramount, and 'senior level' refers to the grade of employment, not relative seniority to the accused. Additionally, the court reiterated that a party cannot gamble on the outcome of a proceeding and subsequently challenge the tribunal's constitution upon receiving an adverse report.

Result: Petition dismissed.