Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Gauhati, Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury held that conciliation under Section 10(4) of the POSH Act only bars the Internal Complaints Committee from any further inquiry and does not bar the employer from commencing disciplinary proceedings under its service regulations on later-emerging material to ensure workplace safety. The matter arose from a woman employee’s sexual-harassment complaint against her supervising officer, a conciliation arrangement, and a subsequent objection supported by a screenshot. The Bench restored the departmental proceedings, directing that the inquiry resume from the stage it had stopped, with defence opportunity ensured, while leaving in place the deletion of the committee’s “lack of evidence” observation.

The appeal arose from an intra-court challenge filed by the employer against a judgment of a Single Judge which had interfered with disciplinary action initiated against an employee following proceedings before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC). A complaint alleging sexual harassment at the workplace was made by a subordinate woman employee against a senior officer. The complaint was placed before the ICC constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

Also Read: Motor Vehicles Act | In-Plant Excavators, Dumpers, Loaders And Dozers Not Motor Vehicles To Attract Road Tax; Supreme Court

During the ICC proceedings, both parties opted for conciliation due to workplace disturbance, resulting in an agreement that they would not work in close proximity. The ICC did not proceed with a full inquiry, noting that the complainant did not press for continuation owing to mental distress, and recorded an observation stating that evidence was lacking. Subsequently, the complainant objected to this observation and submitted a screenshot of an allegedly objectionable message. The ICC declined to reopen the matter citing the bar under Section 10(4) of the 2013 Act.

In light of the additional material, the employer initiated independent departmental proceedings under the applicable service rules. These proceedings were challenged before the writ court, which quashed the disciplinary action and expunged the ICC’s observation on lack of evidence. The employer carried the matter in appeal.

The Division Bench examined the scope of Section 10 of the 2013 Act and recorded that “a bare reading of Section 10(4) of the 2013 Act makes it very clear that what is barred is any further inquiry after the conciliation by the Internal Committee or the Local Committee.”

The Court clarified that this statutory bar “does not extend to the employer’s independent disciplinary jurisdiction which flows from the Service Rules.” It further recorded that “the statutory duty of the employer to ensure a safe workplace cannot be negated merely because the complainant agreed to conciliate at one stage.”

Addressing the relationship between ICC proceedings and disciplinary jurisdiction, the Bench observed that “the ICC proceedings do not substitute disciplinary jurisdiction unless the Service Rules so provide.” The Court described the 2013 Act as “a minimum protective statute” and stated that it “does not curtail disciplinary jurisdiction, unless expressly so provided.”

On the interpretation adopted by the Single Judge, the Court recorded that “reading Section 10(4) of the 2013 Act as a blanket bar will defeat the very purpose of ensuring safe workplaces.” Accordingly, it held that the quashing of disciplinary proceedings was unsustainable.

With respect to the ICC’s observation that there was lack of evidence, the Bench noted that “the inquiry by the ICC could not be concluded because of the agreement between the parties to conciliate the matter to avoid workplace tension and disturbance.” On this basis, it declined to interfere with the expunging of that observation. The Court also recorded that “all questions of facts and merits of the case are kept open” to be examined in the disciplinary proceedings.

The Court ordered that “The part of the impugned judgment, which quashes initiation of the Departmental Proceedings against the respondent No.1, is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is, therefore, set aside. The Departmental Proceedings initiated by the appellant/employer against the respondent No.1 being maintainable and lawful as well, it shall be resumed from the stage from where it was stopped.”

“The Disciplinary Authority shall proceed with the inquiry in accordance with the Service Rules ensuring full opportunity of defence to the respondent No.1/charged officer. So far as the impugned judgment expunging the first paragraph of the ICC conclusion, namely, ‘lack of evidence’ is concerned, the same ought not to be interfered with.”

Also Read: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Plea Against ART Age Limits, Upholds Section 21(g) As Safeguard For Mother And Child Well-Being

“All questions of facts and merits of the case are kept open to be examined by the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority, uninfluenced by any observation made in this judgment. The appeal thus stands partially allowed with no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. R. Dubey, Advocate; Ms. A.B. Kayastha, Advocate

For the Respondent No.1: Mr. R. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. P. Phukan, Advocate

Case Title: Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen V.S.
Neutral Citation: GAHC010147972024
Case Number: WA No. 149 of 2025
Bench: Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar, Justice Arun Dev Choudhury