POSH Act Does Not Extinguish Employer’s Authority Under Service Rules To Inquire Into Employee's Misconduct: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court considered that the conciliation under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act of 2013 does not extinguish an employer’s authority under the Service Rules to inquire into the misconduct of the employee. The Internal Complaints Committee proceedings do not substitute disciplinary jurisdiction unless the Service Rules so provide.

The division bench of Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury observed that, “In our considered view, the bar under Section 10(4) of the 2013 Act does not extinguish an employer’s authority under the Service Rules to inquire into the misconduct of the employee. The ICC proceedings do not substitute disciplinary jurisdiction unless the Service Rules so provide.”

Advocate R. Dubey appeared for the Petitioner, and Senior Advocate R. Sharma appeared for the Respondent.

The employee was a Jt. GM (Commercial) under the Airports Authority of India. A lady Officer working under the supervision of the employee had lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against the employee, which was placed before the ICC. During the proceedings, both the parties opted for conciliation on account of workplace disturbance. Conciliation succeeded to the extent that both agreed not to work in proximity. Later, the ICC, curtailed the inquiry and concluded that evidence was lacking. Later, the complainant objected to such observation in the ICC Report of there being no evidence and cited a screenshot of an objectionable message sent to her by the employee.

In this case, employer contended that the learned Single Judge exceeded the writ jurisdiction in disturbing the factual findings of the ICC and that Section 10(4) of the 2013 Act does not bar initiation of disciplinary action by the employer on the basis of independent material, particularly, where the ICC itself had declined to proceed after the conciliation, and that the complainant’s post conciliation objection and a new material (screenshot) required fresh consideration, which the employer attempted to address through Departmental Proceedings.

The court directed that, “The 2013 Act is a minimum protective statute and does not curtail disciplinary jurisdiction, unless expressly so provided. Reading Section 10(4) of the 2013 Act as a blanket bar will defeat the very purpose of ensuring safe workplaces. Thus, 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.”

Cause Title: Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Praveen VS (WA NO.149 OF 2025)

Appearence

Petitioner Advocate R. Dubey, Advocate A.B. Kayastha.

Respondent Senior Advocate R. Sharma, Advocate P. Phukan.

Click here to read/ download the Order