One Can't Question Constitution Of ICC Under POSH Act On Receiving Unfavourable Result In Inquiry: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court held that a person cannot question the constitution of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 i.e., POSH Act, if he receives an unfavourable result in its inquiry.

The Court held thus in a Writ Petition challenging the Memorandum of Charges issued by the company and the Inquiry Report issued by the ICC.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe observed, “It is by the present Petition filed on 22nd August, 2025, that the Petitioner for the first time has chosen to raise objection to the constitution of Respondent No. 2. Participation of the Petitioner in the said inquiry without demur, gives an impression of the Petitioner having waived his right to object to the constitution of Respondent No. 2 and having acquiesced in the constitution of Respondent No. 2. Having received an unfavourable result in the said Inquiry, the Petitioner is estopped from questioning the constitution of Respondent No. 2.”

The Bench said that there is no material on record to suggest participation of the Petitioner in the inquiry was under protest.

Advocate Uday Warunjikar appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, while Advocate Vishal Talsaniya appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Petitioner was a Medical Officer in the employment of the Respondent company since 2005. In July 2024, a Scientific Officer working with the said company filed a complaint on behalf of his daughter (aggrieved woman), alleging sexual harassment at the hands of the Petitioner, during her medical examination. Vide notification, the company constituted ICC to investigate the said complaint. The ICC conducted an inquiry into the charges levelled against the Petitioner and at that time, he was afforded opportunity to file his written statement of defence. He was also afforded opportunity to admit or deny the charges, to nominate defence assistance of his choice, to inspect or submit the documents, to present his evidence, and to examine or cross-examine witnesses as also an opportunity to submit written brief.

Thereafter, the ICC submitted its inquiry report, holding the charges levelled against the Petitioner as proved. Subsequently, the inquiry report was forwarded to him, calling upon to submit his representation/submission in writing, failing which the Petitioner was notified that the Disciplinary Authority would pass further orders as deemed appropriate. Being dissatisfied, the Petitioner was before the High Court, seeking to quash the inquiry report and all proceedings and action taken against him.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, noted, “Having considered the rival contentions, the issue which fall for consideration in the present Petition is, ‘whether the composition of Respondent No. 2 (ICC) in the present case is contrary to the provisions of the said Act?”

The Court was of the view that the Petitioner if aggrieved by the ICC’s inquiry report, could have availed remedies against the same under Section 18 of POSH Act, but has not availed the said statutory remedy.

“We therefore conclude that the Petitioner has failed to make outany case of any legal defect, much less any defect in the constitution of Respondent No. 2(ICC). Constitution of the Respondent No. 2 (ICC) is in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Material placed on record indicate Respondent No. 2 having complied with the principles of natural justice as also with the other requirements of the service rules i.e. NPCIL (Disciple & Appeal) Rules, 1996 while conducting the Inquiry”, it further observed.

The Court also said that records placed in the Petition indicate Petitioner having participated in the proceedings before ICC till the conclusion of the inquiry, without any objection to the constitution of ICC.

“Petitioner would thus have the opportunity to meet, explain and controvert the matter on merits. … For the above said reasons, no case is made out for interference of this Court”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title- Dr. Shyam Bihari v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:44627-DB)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Uday P. Warunjikar and Gargi U. Warunjikar.

Respondents: Advocates Vishal Talsania and Nukshinaro.

Click here to read/download the Judgment