Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice B. V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held that an armed forces officer aggrieved by the findings and recommendations of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the POSH Act can approach the Armed Forces Tribunal by way of an appeal. Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s view that such a remedy was unavailable, the Court restored the service officer’s application and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on the correctness of the ICC report.

The dispute arose from allegations of sexual harassment made by a woman officer serving as Principal Medical Officer against a serving naval officer during his deployment aboard INS Shakti. Following the complaint dated 02 March 2024, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The ICC conducted an inquiry between April and May 2024 and submitted a report recommending initiation of action against the officer.

Also Read: Employer’s Right To Claim Income-Tax Deduction On Delayed PF/ESI Deposits Under Scrutiny Amid Conflicting Rulings: Supreme Court To Settle Issue

Based on the ICC report, a show cause notice proposing termination of service was issued under Regulation 216 of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1967 read with Section 15(2) of the Navy Act, 1957. The officer challenged both the ICC report and the show cause notice before the Armed Forces Tribunal, invoking Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 read with Section 18 of the POSH Act.

The Tribunal declined to interfere at the stage of the show cause notice. The Delhi High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, holding that an appeal under Section 18 of the POSH Act was not maintainable. The matter was thereafter carried to the Supreme Court.

The Court observed that “the Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2025 issued by respondent No.2 herein was premised on the basis of the report of the ICC and further on certain incidental findings of the ICC.” It stated that “no doubt the power under Section 15 of the Navy Act read with Regulation 216 could be exercised but on following foundational facts.”

The Court recorded that “firstly, the report of the officer’s misconduct must be considered meaningfully; secondly, the Government or the Chief of Naval Staff is satisfied that the trial of the officer by a court-martial is inexpedient or impracticable; and thirdly, there must be an opinion formed that further retention of the said officer in the service is undesirable.”

It noted that “Section 18 of the POSH Act provides that if there is adverse recommendation made by the ICC under Section 13(3)(i) an appeal could be made to the Court or the Tribunal in terms of the service rules.” The Court further observed that “Regulation 216 is general in nature whereas Section 18 is specific inasmuch as it is under a special enactment.”

The Court stated that “Section 14 of the AFT Act, 2007 when read in juxtaposition with Section 18 of the POSH Act, we find that the appellant herein had rightly approached the Tribunal so as to assail the report as well as the recommendations of the ICC. The Tribunal ought to have considered the correctness of the said report in accordance with law.”,

The Court observed that “the Show Cause Notice was not simply a preliminary notice as such, it was a notice relatable directly to the report and the recommendations of the ICC.” It concluded that “the High Court was not right in holding that the appellant had no right under Section 18 of the POSH Act.”

Also Read: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Former SP MLA Irfan Solanki’s Section 528 BNSS Plea, Declines To Quash Gangsters Act Proceedings

The Court directed that “the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for afresh adjudication and consequently, O.A. No.1024/2025 is restored on the file of the Tribunal. Pending consideration of the appeal being O.A. No.1024/2025, the Show Cause Notice dated 05.03.2025 shall not be acted upon. We have not made any observations on the merits of the case.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjiv Sen, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akshay Bhandari, AOR Col Mukul Dev, Adv. Mrs. Shriya Gilhotra, Adv. Mr. Prahalad Balaji, Adv. Mr. Parimal Rai, Adv. Ms. Radha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Jharna Singh, Adv. Ms. Simran Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Sr. Adv. Ms. Gauri Puri, Adv. Mr. Harshil Wason, Adv. Mr. Kashish Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Aditya Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Adv. Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR Mr. Yashaswy Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Singh, Adv. Ms. Pragya Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Nistha Sachan, Adv.

Case Title: 42605-B Cdr Yogesh Mahla v Union of India & Others                                    

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 107

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No.19815 of 2025)

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan