Suspension under workplace harassment allegations must follow principles of natural justice, and failure to conclude proceedings mandates reinstatement.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Petitioner, who has completed 36 years of service under the 1^st respondent-KSFE and who is now working as Despatch Assistant, has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P12 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service. By Ext.P12 order dated 23.07.2025, the petitioner stands suspended from service in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings.

2. The petitioner states that he has been suspended on an allegation that he and two women employees entered into the cabin of AGM (Legal) on 21.12.2024 and misbehaved to the AGM (Legal) and caused obstruction to the smooth functioning of the office.

3. According to the petitioner, in spite of availability of rank lists, the 1^st respondent has not been reporting vacancies to the PSC and has been appointing employees on daily wages. The petitioner took up the cause and hence daily wage employees have an axe to grind against him. Though the petitioner was suspended on 21.12.2024, he was permitted to resume duties on 13.03.2025. Thereafter, Ext.P3 memo dated 12.03.2025 was served on the petitioner. Though the petitioner submitted reply, the respondents decided to conduct a domestic enquiry.

4. The petitioner states that on 21.12.2024, he had gone to the Head Office accompanied by two female State Committee members of the Union. They met AGM (Legal) and others. They requested the officers to terminate the service of daily wage staff and appoint candidates from PSC rank list. The AGM (Legal) shouted at the petitioner.

5. On 21.12.2024, one Smt. Subha Mohan submitted a complaint alleging that through Whatsapp posts, the petitioner chatted with her with sexual intent. Consequently, an Internal Complaints Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 was formed. Smt. Subha Mohan filed Ext.P6 complaint before the Committee.

The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply.

6. The Internal Complaints Committee submitted an interim report recommending to suspend the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner was suspended as per Ext.P8 order dated 15.04.2025. In W.P.(C) No.19209/2025, this Court set aside Ext.P8 suspension order. The Internal Complaints Committee submitted Ext.P10 final report. The petitioner filed Ext.P11 appeal before the Board of Directors of the 1^st respondent. The appeal is pending. In the meanwhile, the 2^nd respondent has issued Ext.P12 order dated 23.07.2025 suspending the petitioner from service again. The petitioner states that the order of suspension is punitive.

7. The petitioner states that Ext.P10 final report is made in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Ext.P6 does not disclose any sexual harassment as defined in Section 2 (n) of the Act. The 2^nd respondent should not have suspended the petitioner based on Ext.P10 report of the Internal Complaints Committee. Ext.P12 is malafide and punitive. Ext.P12 is therefore liable to be set aside.

8. The respondents filed a counter affidavit.

The Internal Complaints Committee has filed a final report and hence disciplinary proceedings were initiated. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 appeal which is pending consideration. The suspension imposed on the petitioner is not punitive. The petitioner is trying to project his suspension as punishment. As per Section 13 of the Act, 2013, where the Internal Committee arrives at the conclusion of guilt, it shall recommend to the employer to take action for sexual harassment. The respondents have only initiated action.

9. The Standing Counsel representing the respondents relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Medha Kotwal Lele and others v. Union of India and others [ (