The court reaffirmed that statutory provisions within the POSH Act require adherence to set processes, thus upholding the ICC's authority to determine complaints, with a recognized right of appeal thereafter.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (for short 'ICC') dated 28.03.2023 submitted by the respondent No.5 and circulated by the respondent No.3 vide letter bearing No.BGR/STA-ll/SHO1/2023 dated 08.05.2023.

(ii) She has also sought for compensation for non-constitution of ICC in accordance with Section 26 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (for short 'POSH Act, 2013'). She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare that the respondent Nos.6 with the aid of respondent Nos.7 to 12 have allowed the perpetrator to go scot-free and to direct the respondent No.1 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against the respondent Nos.6 to 12.

(iii) She has also sought for a declaration that the respondents have violated the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishaka and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and others - AIR 1997 SC 3011 by flouting the rules prescribed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in failing to implement the guidelines laid down in law for protection of women from sexual harassment at work place.

(iv) She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare that the repeated transfer of the petitioner to Yadgiri and thereafter to Vijayapura is malicious, bad in law and violates her fundamental rights. She has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to jointly and severally pay compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- to the petitioner.

2. (i) The petitioner contends that she was appointed as a Personal Assistant in the postal department and after successfully qualifying in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), she was appointed as Inspector of Posts with effect from 12.09.2012 and subsequently promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices with effect from 27.11.2018. She was thereafter transferred to Channapatna Division as Assistant Superintendent of Posts (Head Quarter).

(ii) She claimed that she had put in 18 years of unblemished exemplary service to the satisfaction of her seniors. She claimed that respondent No.6 assumed the charge of the Superintendent of Post Office, Channapatna Division on 28.09.2022. The petitioner claimed that she faced severe personal issues and was sexually harassed by the respondent No.6, in as much as, he used to insist the petitioner to bear the lunch and refreshment expenses of higher authorities, whenever they visited Channapatna division. The petitioner claimed that respondent No.11 visited Channapatna divisional office on 17.11.2022 for inspection and the respondent No.6 took him for lunch and the lunch bill was Rs.7,658/-. She contends that though the respondent No.11 was claiming reimbursement of food bill and other tour related amenities, the respondent No.6 forced the petitioner and five other officials to pay the said lunch bill.

(iii) She contends that similarly, on 04.01.2023, the audit officers visited Channapatna division in connection with a fraud case. On the said day, the respondent No.6 asked the petitioner to arrange lunch and to share the expenditure of the audit party. When the petitioner declined to bear the expenditure, the respondent No.6 shouted at the petitioner, abused her and threatened her that he will record adverse remarks and recommend for disciplinary action. The respondent No.6 thereafter escalated the harassment and started torturing her for not cooperating with him for his sexual advances. The petitioner therefore proposed to lodge a complaint under POSH Act, 201