ICC must try to settle sexual harassment case before starting inquiry: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that Internal Complaints Committees (ICCs) under The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act or POSH Act are obligated to try and settle harassment cases before initiating a formal enquiry under service rules [Dr. Kali Charna Sabat v. Union of India Through National Institute of Technology & Others]..Justice Sanjay Dwivedi said that Section 10 of the POSH Act prescribes that the ICC or the Local Committee, before initiating any inquiry in the matter, may try to settle the dispute by referring the matter for conciliation.“The language used in the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the Committee is under obligation to make an attempt to settle the matter by way of conciliation and if it fails then only the matter has to be enquired into as per Service Rules,” the Court said..The Court made the observation while deciding on a plea challenging the dismissal of an Assistant Professor at Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology (MANIT), Bhopal.Certain students had complained against the teacher, leading to disciplinary action being taken against him. He then moved the High Court to argue that there was a violation of procedure and principles of natural justice..The Court found that there was a complete violation of provisions of the POSH Act in the case since conciliation had not been attempted before initiation of the formal inquiry.It further said that the complaints against the teacher were made beyond the period of three months from the date of the alleged incidents. The same was found to be violative of Section 9, which provides that the complaint should be made within a period of three months from the date of the last incident..Further, the Court found that the teacher was not given an opportunity of hearing by the ICC.“The enquiry report does not reveal whether any complainant appeared or was produced during the course of enquiry and whether petitioner was granted any opportunity to cross-examine them or not. Only on the basis of charges levelled and reply submitted by the petitioner, the Enquiry Committee prepared its report and supplied it to the petitioner on 20.11.2022,” it noted..While granting relief to the petitioner, the Court said,“This Court has no hesitation to hold that from the very inception respondents have not followed any valid procedure for conducting the enquiry or the requirement of provisions of the Act of 2013. Not only this, the procedure to conduct an enquiry as provided under Rule 14 of Rules of 1965 has also not been followed and as such, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer cannot be considered to be sustainable in the eyes of law and any punishment based upon said finding cannot be allowed to stand.”.Senior Advocate Manoj Sharma with Advocate Lavanya Verma represented the petitioner.Advocate Yogesh Bhatnagar represented the respondents..[Read Judgment]