Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay, Division Bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande set aside a ‘Reprimand’ penalty imposed on a National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) employee after holding that the Central Complaints Committee (CCC) lacked jurisdiction to recommend disciplinary action once it found no sexual harassment. The dispute arose from complaints by female colleagues that the employee had recorded videos at the workplace without their consent, after he alleged that groups of women were disrupting office work by sitting together, laughing, gossiping and singing. While the CCC concluded in its June 30, 2020 report that the conduct did not amount to sexual harassment, the High Court quashed both that recommendation and the consequent reprimand order.

The petition arose from disciplinary action initiated against a retired senior officer of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD) following complaints made by women employees working in the same department. The dispute originated when the petitioner raised internal complaints alleging disturbance in the office environment caused by colleagues. Subsequently, complaints were lodged against him alleging inappropriate conduct, including recording videos of women staff members at the workplace without consent. These complaints were referred to the Central Complaints Committee constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Also Read: AICTE Norms Inapplicable To Direct Recruitment Of Engineering College Professors By State PSCs: Supreme Court

The Committee conducted an inquiry, considered the statements of the complainants and the petitioner, and examined the material placed on record, including the admitted fact of video recording. While the Committee concluded that the conduct complained of did not amount to sexual harassment within the meaning of the statute, it nonetheless recommended that disciplinary action be taken under the applicable service rules. Acting on this recommendation, the competent authority imposed the penalty of “Reprimand” under the service rules. The petitioner challenged both the recommendation of the Committee and the consequential penalty, contending that the Committee lacked jurisdiction to recommend any action after recording a finding of no sexual harassment.

The Division Bench examined the scope of authority vested in a complaints committee constituted under the POSH Act and the corresponding service rules. The Court recorded that “the issue raised in the present writ petition is whether the CCC had the jurisdiction to make a recommendation, to take action against the Petitioner, when it has recorded that there is no sexual harassment by the Petitioner.”

After analysing the statutory framework, the Bench noted that “the Committee is constituted for addressing the grievance against the complaints of sexual harassment in their establishment,” and that its jurisdiction is confined to allegations falling within the statutory definition. The Court observed that the Committee had categorically found that “merely video recording per se would not fall in any of the acts, which would constitute ‘sexual harassment’ under the Act.”

The Bench further recorded that the Committee itself had noted that “there was no sexual harassment angle, but it was simply causing them harassment,” and that apprehensions regarding possible misuse of videos were insufficient since “mere apprehension of complainants do not fall within the jurisdiction of the CCC to initiate any action under the POSH Act, 2013.”

Despite this, the Committee proceeded to recommend disciplinary action. On this aspect, the Court stated that “once the Committee has formed an opinion that the conduct of the Petitioner did not constitute ‘sexual harassment’, it could not have recommended any action against the Petitioner.”

Referring to Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, the Bench recorded that “where the Internal Committee arrives at a conclusion that the allegation against the respondent has not been proved, it shall recommend … that no action is required to be taken in the matter.” The Court therefore concluded that “the CCC has exceeded its jurisdiction by making recommendation to the Competent Authority to take suitable action against the Petitioner.”

Turning to the penalty imposed, the Bench observed that “the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty of ‘Reprimand’ solely on the basis of the recommendation made by the CCC,” and held that acting mechanically on such recommendation “without application of his mind or making any independent inquiry” was impermissible.

Also Read: Immoral Traffic Prevention Act | Major Victim Can’t Be Detained In Protective Home Against Her Will Solely Due To Lack Of Family : Bombay High Court

The Court directed that “the recommendation made by the Central Complaints Committee in its report dated 30.6.2020 along with the order passed by the Chief General Manager dated 24.9.2020, are quashed and set aside. The Writ Petition is allowed,” and “Rule is made absolute in the above terms.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Vishal P. Shirke, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. S. P. Bharti, Advocate

Case Title: Dr. Mohinder Kumar v. The Chairman, NABARD & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-OS:1445-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 1635 of 2021
Bench: Justice Bharati Dangre, Justice Manjusha Deshpande