Interim reports under the PoSH Act are impermissible until a full inquiry is completed, ensuring procedural fairness, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing Exts.P8 and P9, that is, the interim report of the third respondent based on which the second respondent suspended the petitioner by Ext.P9 order.

2. According to the petitioner, he joined the service of the first respondent as Office Attendant on 12/07/1989. Presently, he is working as Despatch Assistant in the same cadre. While so, he was suspended from the service as per Ext.P1 order dated 23/12/2024 alleging that he had unlawfully entered into the office of the A.G.M.(legal) and misbehaved with him. He was reinstated in service as per Ext.P2 order dated 13/03/2025. On 18/03/2025, he was issued with Ext.P3 memo of charges dated 12/03/2025, in which various allegations have been made including that he had abused a lady employee. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanation dated 28/03/2025. However, by Ext.P5 memo dated 02/04/2025, he was informed by the second respondent that his Ext.P4 explanation was not satisfactory and it has been decided to conduct a domestic inquiry. Matters being so, Ext.P6 complaint dated 23/12/2024 was given by one of the lady daily-wage workers to the second respondent alleging that the petitioner had sexually harassed her. Thereupon, the third respondent Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (the PoSH Act) was formed. The petitioner was served with the complaint that is, Ext.P6. To the said complaint, the petitioner gave Ext.P7 reply dated 07/01/2025. The third respondent in the absence of the petitioner recorded the statements of the complainant and some witnesses. The petitioner was not permitted to cross examine them. Thereafter, the third respondent Committee submitted Ext.P8 interim report to the first respondent recommending suspension of the petitioner till the final report was submitted. Based on Ext.P8 interim report, the petitioner has again been suspended on 15/04/2025 as per Ext.P9 order. Ext.P8 interim report is against the provisions of the PoSH Act and hence Ext.P8 and P9 are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and require to be interfered with. Hence the writ petition inter alia seeking quashing of Exts.P8 interim report and P9 order of suspension.

3. The first and the second respondents have filed counter affidavit contending that after elaborate and careful consideration of the testimonies of the complainant and three witnesses as well as the Whats-app chat furnished by the complainant, the third respondent Committee was satisfied of the allegations in the complaint and therefore formed a prima facie opinion that the petitioner had misbehaved with not only the complainant, but the other lady staff also in the office. The third respondent Committee observed that in such circumstances, it was not conducive to the safety of the complainant and the other lady staff including the witnesses, for the petitioner to continue working in the office. While the Committee recommended suspension of the petitioner, what compelled the second respondent to issue Ext.P9 suspension order was a prima facie finding arrived at by the committee after exhaustive consideration of the evidence and the documents that were produced by the complainant in support of her complaint. Ext.P8 report shows that the petitioner has been harassing not only the complainant but other lady staff also. Though the petitioner has been transferred to the office at Idukki, based on Ext.P8 report of the third respondent, there was a genuine apprehension that the petitioner would continue to behave in a similar manner with other women in t