Delhi High Court Pronouncement: The Scope of Internal Committees Excludes Moral Policing
Judgement Given On : 16/12/2020
In a recent judicial pronouncement, rendered on December 16, 2020, within the case of Bibha Pandey vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, the Delhi High Court has illuminated the boundaries of Internal Committees (ICs) in dealing with cases of workplace sexual harassment. The court issued a pivotal statement, making it clear that “Moral Policing is not the job of the Management or of the IC.” This verdict holds significant legal implications, elucidating the precise functions and responsibilities of ICs under the aegis of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
The case in question revolved around a formal complaint of sexual harassment submitted to the IC of Punjab National Bank, Mumbai, implicating its General Manager (hereinafter, “Respondent”). Following a thorough investigation, the IC concluded that the Petitioner and Respondent maintained a personal relationship and that the allegations of sexual, emotional, and mental harassment lacked substantiation. Consequently, the IC recommended that the Competent Authority take appropriate actions against both the Petitioner and the Respondent for their conduct.
The IC’s recommendation is as follows:
“After meticulous deliberation, the committee noted that both the complainant, Ms. Bibha Pandey, and the respondent, Shri Ashwini Kumar Vats, had willingly entered into a personal relationship. The allegations of sexual, mental, and emotional harassment have not been substantiated, as the Respondent’s actions and the allegations do not align with the definition of sexual harassment at the workplace, as stipulated by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act 2013. Therefore, the present complaint is dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability, as per the provisions of the Act of 2013.
The Committee observes, based on the available records, that both the Complainant and the Respondent have displayed conduct unbecoming of officer employees of the Bank, engaging in inappropriate actions and failing to uphold the expected standards of conduct and discipline. The Respondent, holding a senior position, has failed to maintain the dignity and decorum associated with his position. No case under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act 2013 is established. Both the Complainant and the Respondent have exhibited behavior incompatible with their positions, resulting in the deterioration of the organization’s working environment. The competent authority may take appropriate action against them, as deemed fit.”
Petitioner’s Argument:
The Petitioner contended that the IC, in response to a sexual harassment complaint, should solely terminate the inquiry if sexual harassment is unsubstantiated. The Petitioner argued that the IC’s recommendation to take action against her for her ‘unbecoming’ conduct was incongruous with section 13 (2) of the POSH Law. This section prescribes that when the IC determines that the allegations against the respondent have not been proven, it shall recommend to the employer and the District Officer that no action is warranted.
Court’s Ruling:
- Limited Mandate of IC:
- The IC possesses the authority to conduct inquiries and issue reports exclusively within the confines of statutory provisions.
- In cases where sexual harassment is not established, the IC can only conclude that no further action is warranted. Conversely, when sexual harassment is established, the IC may recommend appropriate measures to address the misconduct in accordance with the POSH Law.
- Moral Policing Beyond IC’s Ambit:
- The role of “Moral Policing” does not fall within the purview of either the Management or the IC.
- Provided that a consensual relationship between adult individuals does not disrupt the organization’s operations, discipline, or contravene established rules or codes of conduct, it remains beyond the concern of both the Management and the IC.
- IC’s Authority Limited to Sexual Harassment Allegations:
- The IC’s jurisdiction is explicitly confined to evaluating allegations of sexual harassment and determining whether a complaint pertaining to such harassment is substantiated or not.
In summation, the Delhi High Court’s ruling in the Bibha Pandey case underscores the distinct boundaries of ICs as prescribed by the POSH Act. It underscores that ICs should abstain from engaging in “Moral Policing” and that personal relationships between consenting adults, so long as they do not disrupt the organization’s operations, discipline, or violate established norms, should not be a subject of inquiry for the IC. This verdict firmly underscores the IC’s responsibility to focus exclusively on allegations of sexual harassment and ascertain the validity of such complaints, thereby ensuring a balanced and equitable approach to addressing workplace misconduct.