Procedural Lapse By ICC In Sexual Harassment Complaint Cannot Extinguish Aggrieved Woman's Right To Redress: Gauhati High Court Orders Fresh Inquiry Under POSH
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Gauhati High Court Single Bench of Justice Devashis Baruah held that a faculty member at IIT Guwahati could not escape fresh inquiry proceedings under the POSH Act on the ground that the institution's Internal Complaints Committee had previously declined to act on a sexual harassment complaint against him. The Court found that the ICC's repeated failure to conduct any statutory fact-finding inquiry amounted to an abdication of its legal duty, and that such inaction could not extinguish the aggrieved woman's right to redress. Directing the ICC to forthwith initiate a preliminary inquiry followed, if warranted, by formal disciplinary proceedings, the Court dismissed the petition challenging the revival of the proceedings.
The writ petition arose from proceedings initiated against a faculty member of a premier institute following allegations of sexual harassment made by a woman employee. The complainant lodged an FIR in December 2014 alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code and also submitted a complaint before the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The ICC, in meetings held in December 2014 and April 2015, declined to proceed on the ground that the matter was sub judice and recommended certain interim welfare measures.
The petitioner was placed under suspension and departmental proceedings were initiated but later challenged in separate writ proceedings. In 2022, an internal Committee examined the matter and submitted a report opining that the ICC had not conducted an inquiry as required under Sections 11 and 13 of the Act of 2013. Based on this, the ICC issued an email seeking the petitioner’s response. The petitioner challenged the Inquiry Report dated 27.06.2022 and the subsequent ICC communication dated 26.08.2022, contending that the ICC had already decided not to pursue the complaint and lacked power to reopen the matter. The respondents argued that no statutory inquiry had been conducted and that the ICC was obligated to undertake a preliminary fact-finding inquiry in terms of the Act and the Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2015.
The Court examined the scheme of the Act of 2013 and recorded that “the Act was enacted to provide protection against sexual harassment of women at work place, and for the prevention and redressal of complaints of sexual harassment and for matters connected therewith.” It observed that sexual harassment at the workplace “is in violation of the fundamental rights of a Woman to equality under Article 14 and Article 15 of the Constitution.”
Referring to the statutory framework, the Court stated that “a conjoint reading of Sections 4, 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the Act of 2013 would also show that the ICC at the workplace is tasked with inquiring into an incident” and that “there is a duty cast upon the ICC to inquire into the allegations so made and submit a report.”
On the earlier decisions of the ICC, the Court recorded that “the ICC constituted by the Respondent No. 1 did not inquire into the said complaint. Rather, the ICC so constituted by the Respondent No. 1, abdicated its duties reposed upon them by the provisions of Sections 10, 11, and 13 of the Act of 2013.” It further observed that the reports dated 19.12.2014, 27.04.2015 and 19.06.2018 “under no circumstances, can be considered to be a recommendation by the ICC… as there was no fact-finding/preliminary report submitted.”
Dealing with the petitioner’s contention that the ICC could not proceed again, the Court stated that “the submission so made is misconceived in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the ICC… did not conduct any fact-finding inquiry at all which was required to be done as per law.” It recorded that “what the ICC… did was failed to exercise the jurisdiction conferred upon it by law.”
The Court also noted that the Committee constituted in 2022 was an internal exercise and recorded that “the said report dated 27.06.2022 was only an internal report which would have no bearing on the inquiry to be conducted on complaint by the ICC.” It concluded that “the ICC… having failed to discharge its duties and responsibilities… is otherwise obligated to carry out the fact-finding/preliminary inquiry as mandated under law.”
The Court recorded that “the writ petition lacks merit and accordingly stands dismissed.” And that “interim order(s) passed earlier stands vacated.”
The Court directed that “the ICC so constituted by the Respondent No. 1 shall forthwith initiate the preliminary/fact-finding inquiry, which constitutes the first stage in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2015. Upon completion of the said inquiry, the ICC shall submit its report.”
“The Respondent No. 1 as well as the disciplinary authority of the Respondent No. 1 are further directed, upon submission of such report to consider, as to whether, any action for initiation of disciplinary proceedings is warranted against the Petitioner. if in the circumstances the Respondent No. 1 and the disciplinary authority of the Respondent No. 1 are of the opinion that disciplinary proceedings are warranted, a Charge Sheet be issued to the Petitioner.”
“The ICC so constituted by the Respondent No. 1 shall conduct the second stage formal inquiry as the Inquiring Authority.” It also stated that “taking into account that the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1965 would be applicable, post the submission of the Inquiry Report submitted by the ICC of the Respondent No. 1, the needful be done.”
“Keeping the timelines given by the Supreme Court in the order dated 16.09.2025 as already quoted above, the Authorities concerned are directed to expedite the proceedings.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. B. Gogoi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R.P. Kakoti, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.B. Dey, Advocate
Case Title: Aloke Kumar Ghoshal v. Indian Institute of Technology and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: GAU-AS:1827
Case Number: WP(C)/5959/2022
Bench: Justice Devashis Baruah
