Violation Of Rule 7 Of POSH Rules Vitiates Inquiry By Internal Complaints Committee: Kerala HC
The Kerala High Court observed that the constitution of the Committee and the entire proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013(‘POSH’) shall strictly follow the principles of natural justice and Rule 7 of the POSH Rules.
The Petitioner approached the Court to quash the inquiry report and to reinstate the Petitioner back to service. A complaint was filed against him and the proceedings were initiated by the Internal Complaints Committee (‘ICC’) and an inquiry report was filed.
A Single Bench of Justice Basant Balaji observed “Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that Ext.P7 is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and also against Rule 7 of the POSH Rules. Therefore, Ext.P7 stands quashed and the 3rd respondent is directed to constitute a new Committee in tune with Section 4 and Sub Clause (5) of the POSH Act as the petitioner has a contention that the President of the Committee already constituted is facing disciplinary proceedings. The entire proceedings shall be completed in accordance with law strictly following the principles of natural justice and Rule 7 of the POSH Rules after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing as well, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
Advocate Johnson Gomez appeared for the Petitioner and Antony Mukkath Standing Counsel appeared for the Respondents.
The Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that neither the complaint nor the documents were served on him which is mandatory under Rule 7 of the POSH Act.
Therefore, the Court observed “Rule 7(2) specifically states that, on receipt of the complaint, the Complaints Committee shall send one of the copies to the respondent and the inquiry should be done in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the petitioner taken me through Ext.P7 inquiry report which shows that there are violations of the principles of natural justice. The complaint was not served on him. Moreover, the witnesses were examined in his absence without allowing the petitioner to cross-examine them. Therefore, Ext.P7 is not in tune with Rule 7 of the POSH Rules.”
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the writ petition.
Cause Title: Vineeth V. V. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors. (Neutral Citation 2024:KER:21733)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Johnson Gomez, Ann Maria Sebastian, Sanjay Johnson, John Gomez, Arun Johny, Deebu R. and Abin Jacob Mathew
Respondent: Standing Counsel Antony Mukkath and Advocate Mary Beena Joseph
