2026:BHC-GOA:849 Andreza IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION No. 15 OF 2026 ----------------------

1.

…Petitioner V e r s u s

1. 2. 3. 4.

…Respondents ----------------------------------

Mr. Shivraj Gaonkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rishikesh Gawas, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Ms. Annelise Fernandes, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.

---------------------------------------

CORAM : DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

RESERVED ON : 16^th APRIL 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 20^th APRIL 2026

JUDGMENT

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, waive notice.

2.

By way of the Petition, the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 26^th November, 2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court in Appeal No. SH/01-2025 as being illegal, perverse and without jurisdiction. He also seeks a direction to the Industrial Tribunal to restore the said appeal to its file and hear and decide the same on merits in accordance with law. In the alternative, the Petitioner seeks a direction to the Respondent No. 1 (Directorate of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship) to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against the Respondent No. 3 for his misconduct in instigating a false and malicious complaint against the Petitioner.

3.

The issue involved in the present matter commenced with a complaint of sexual harassment made by the Respondent No. 4 against the Petitioner. She later retracted her complaint stating that she was forced to make the same, on threats of future harassment by her Principal i.e., the Respondent No.3. The Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’), relying on her retracted statement, closed the proceedings, however, concluding that she was forced by an ‘unknown source’ to make the complaint. The ICC omitted the name of the Respondent No.3 from its conclusion and instead recorded that the Complainant was instigated by an ‘unknown source’ to make the complaint against the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner is limited to this omission.

4.

The Petitioner is a permanent Government servant, working as a Lower Division Clerk with the Respondent No. 1. He was the accused before the ICC constituted by the Respondent No. 1 under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (‘POSH Act’). The Respondents No. 1 and 2 are the Employers; the Respondent No. 3 is the Principal of the Respondent No.2-Institute and Respondent No. 4 is the Complainant.

5. On 29^th November 2024, the Respondent No. 4 addressed a complaint to the Director of the Respondent No. 1 against the Petitioner herein, alleging that the Petitioner was harassing her on basis of her disability. She also alleged that the Petitioner did not cooperate with her and frequently passed discriminating comments such as ‘go to hell’ and other such remarks. He frequently stared at her in an unpleasant and unprofessional manner and also behaved in an aggressive and abnormal way. She thus, requested the authorities concerned to take immediate action against the Petitioner.

6.

An ICC was constituted to inquire into the complaint of Respondent No. 4. The Petitioner filed his reply dated 2^nd January, 2025 denying the allegations made by the Complainant and raised a suspicion that the complaint was made by the Respondent No. 4, on an instigation of a third person.

7. The ICC conducted a preliminary inquiry on 3^rd January, 2025. The Respondent No. 4 admitted that her complaint was not prepared by her and she was unaware of the contents of the said letter. She further stated that the Petitioner had neither sexually harassed her nor troubled her on the basis of her disability. In fact, she clearly stated that the complaint was prepared by the Respondent No. 3 i.e., the Principal of the Institute and she was threatened to sign the same with consequences, if