Calcutta High Court Clarifies Coordination Of Posh Act

Calcutta High Court Clarifies Coordination Of Posh Act And Cda Rules In Sexual Harassment Cases

Judgement Given On : 13/07/2022

This legal matter revolves around an employee who was confronted with allegations of sexual harassment within the workplace and subsequently challenged the resulting penalty order. The petitioner, initially serving as a Junior Executive (Law) at the Metal Scrap Trade Corporation (“MSTC Ltd.”), later ascended to the position of Manager within the company’s head office in Kolkata. A fellow employee, an Officer on Special Duty (Law) at MSTC Ltd.’s head office, levied a formal complaint of sexual harassment against the petitioner.

Contentions Presented by the Petitioner:

The petitioner advanced the argument that the findings and the report generated by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC), established under the aegis of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”), amount to nothing more than a preliminary investigative phase. Consequently, disciplinary action must be conducted as a separate and distinct proceeding. The petitioner maintained that the authorities overseeing this matter failed to adhere to the provisions of the POSH Act and the Conduct, Discipline, and Appeal (CDA) Rules of 1980, inadvertently merging the two investigative processes into a unified entity.

Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the disciplinary authority acted in contravention of the fundamental principles of natural justice. This assertion stemmed from the issuance of an unreasoned punitive order without extending an opportunity to the petitioner to furnish a rebuttal to the ICC report. Notably, the petitioner was apprised of this report after the punitive measures were administered.

Arguments Presented by the Respondents:

The respondents posited that the ICC report’s recommendations bear a binding character upon the employer. Consequently, the employer is left with no discretion but to implement these recommendations in full. The respondents argued that the petitioner did not raise any objections to the ICC report during the course of legal proceedings. To support their stance, they invoked Supreme Court precedents that categorize the ICC report as a definitive finding or report within a misconduct inquiry. Additionally, the respondents invoked Rule 27A of the CDA Rules of 1980, underscoring that, in cases involving complaints of sexual harassment, the ICC serves as the designated inquiry committee, with its report assuming the status of the official inquiry report as per the established rules.

Court’s Judicial Observations:

The core issue addressed by the Calcutta High Court pertained to whether, in instances involving complaints of sexual harassment, the disciplinary authority is obligated to initiate an autonomous inquiry or possesses the prerogative to proceed with disciplinary action based on the ICC report.

The court meticulously scrutinized the legislative provisions encapsulated within the POSH Act and its corresponding regulations. It was noted that when an official complaint is lodged, the employee implicated in the complaint is entitled to receive a copy of the complaint, accompanied by an opportunity to furnish a response. This procedural mechanism affords both the complainant and the employee under scrutiny an equitable chance to introduce oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective positions. The court also underscored that the inquiry conducted by the ICC is conducted in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the ICC enjoys certain powers, akin to a civil court, in relation to specific aspects of witness testimony and evidence. Notably, the parties embroiled in the dispute retain the right to appeal the findings and recommendations articulated in the ICC report. Therefore, the court asserted that the ICC inquiry is exhaustive and affords ample opportunities for parties to present their respective contentions. The court further elucidated that the recommendations offered by the ICC possess a conclusive character.

The court emphasized that the POSH Act imposes an obligation on employers to heed the recommendations proffered by the ICC. Thus, the court firmly concluded that the ICC inquiry report should not be construed merely as a preliminary investigative step.

In the case at hand, the disciplinary authority had grounded its punitive measures exclusively upon the ICC report. This approach was deemed violative of the CDA Rules of 1980 and the tenets of natural justice, thereby causing detriment to the petitioner.

The court also highlighted that the penalty meted out was disproportionate to the proven allegations and lacked alignment with the prescribed major penalties. Consequently, the court identified a fundamental flaw in the decision-making process, warranting intervention through the avenue of judicial review.

In conclusion, the Calcutta High Court reaffirmed that in cases involving complaints of sexual harassment, the ICC report assumes the role of the official inquiry report in accordance with the CDA Rules. The court accentuated the paramount importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and ensuring that punitive measures are proportionate in such cases.