Kerala High Court: In a writ petition alleging violation of the principles of natural justice during an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) enquiry, specifically, the failure to furnish a copy of the complaint to the delinquent employee, denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under Section 11(1), Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) and Rule 7, POSH Rules, a Single Judge Bench of M.B. Snehalatha, J., set aside the ICC’s report, holding that the non-service of the complaint constituted a breach of natural justice and of POSH Act and Rules. The Court also directed that a fresh enquiry be conducted within two months.
Background
Pursuant to an enquiry conducted by the ICC of the Government Medical College a termination order was passed against Petitioner 1 and certain adverse consequences visited upon Petitioner 2. They contended that these were arbitrary and illegal and in gross violation of the POSH Act.
It was alleged that the ICC enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and neither the copy of the complaint nor the ICC report was supplied to the petitioners as mandated, and that the complaint was obtained only through the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and that too after the issuance of the impugned report. The petitioners contended that they were summoned for enquiry without a copy of the complaint, were denied the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses and were not permitted to examine their own witnesses, thereby infringing the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem. They specifically argued the violation of Rule 7(2), (3) and (4), POSH Rules, emphasising that the mandatory requirement to serve a copy of the complaint and documents had not been complied with.
Respondents 1 and 5 denied these allegations and maintained that the ICC, being a statutory fact-finding body, had evaluated the testimony, assessed its consistency, and provided sufficient opportunity to respond. It was further contended that the termination was a consequence of the findings of the ICC and not arbitrary. Respondent 1 submitted that the proper remedy against the termination was an appeal under Section 18, POSH Act and that the ICC report and the termination order were not amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Analysis and Decision
The Court opined that under Section 11(1), POSH Act an inquiry against an employee of the State must be in the form of a disciplinary enquiry to prove misconduct and the procedure to be followed in such enquiry must be the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 or such other departmental rules applicable to the employee, which must be consistent with the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that serving a copy of the complaint and other relevant documents is mandatory under Rule 7, POSH Rules, and the failure to do so constitutes violation of the principles of natural justice.
The Court referred to Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa, (2024) 1 SCC 632, wherein the Supreme Court had emphasised that:
“any inquiry into a complaint of sexual harassment at the workplace must be in accordance with the relevant rules and in line with the principles of natural justice. The cardinal principle required to be borne in mind is that the person accused of misconduct must be informed of the case, must be supplied the evidence in support thereof and be given a reasonable opportunity to present his version before any adverse decision is taken.”
The Court observed that in the counter affidavit filed by Respondent 5, it was stated that the complaint was shown to each of the accused during the hearing, from which it became evident that the complaint had not been served on the petitioners. The Court noted that the records also revealed that no opportunity was given to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses. Thus, the Court found prima facie merit in the contention that the enquiry was conducted by ICC in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Consequently, the Court set aside the ICC report as the enquiry was conducted without following the POSH Act, POSH Rules and the principles of natural justice, with a direction to Respondents 4 and 5 to conduct a fresh enquiry within two months.
[X v. Kerala Social Security Mission, WP(C) No. 31952 of 2025, decided on 17-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Shibi K.P., C.K. Sunil, Vidya K.G., Advocates.
For the Respondents: K.R. Ganesh.
