The Madhya Pradesh High Court has quashed the transfer order of a sub-inspector, Shankarlal Namdeo, who faced allegations under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The Court ruled that the transfer, which was based solely on the pendency of internal complaints committee (ICC) proceedings, was unjustified and amounted to undue victimization and harassment of the petitioner. "...this Court has no hesitation in holding that the transfer of the petitioner merely on account of pendency of the Internal Committee proceedings is not justified in absence of any recommendation of the committee, and the committee proceedings having been brought to an indefinite stalemate by the intervenor herself. The transfer amounts to nothing but undue victimization and harassment of the petitioner," the Bench of Justice Vivek Jain said.

The Court emphasized that a transfer on the grounds of pending sexual harassment inquiries, without any recommendation from the internal complaints committee, violates the provisions of the POSH Act and does not serve any administrative exigency.

The Court further highlighted that the transfer, made without any concrete findings from the committee, penalized the petitioner for the mere pendency of an inquiry, which had been delayed due to the non-cooperation of the complainant herself. "The transfer of the petitioner is not on the ground of any administrative exigency like requirement of work at Maihar. The transfer is only on account of pendency of the complaint before the Internal Complaint committee. The contention of the petitioner seems to have substance in saying that the order amounts to penalizing the petitioner by transferring him to a place almost 150 Km. away just on account of pendency of the enquiry, that too which is in position of indefinite stalemate," the Bench said.

The legal dispute arose from the transfer of sub-inspector Shankarlal Namdeo, against whom a female colleague, a head constable, had filed a sexual harassment complaint. The complaint triggered proceedings under the POSH Act. Despite two prior inquiries clearing Namdeo of the allegations, the police department recommended his transfer, citing workplace issues between Namdeo and the complainant.

Namdeo filed a writ petition challenging his transfer order, arguing that it was a punitive measure disguised as an administrative decision. He contended that the proceedings under the POSH Act had been stalled due to the non-cooperation of the complainant, and thus, transferring him 150 kilometers away from his current post was unjustified.

The complainant, who intervened in the case, alleged that Namdeo had been engaging in sexual and gender harassment. She argued that the transfer was permissible under Section 12 of the POSH Act, which allows for the transfer of either the aggrieved woman or the respondent to another location while an inquiry is pending. Her counsel contended that Namdeo’s presence at the same workplace would be detrimental to the workplace environment and could influence the ongoing investigation.

The Single-Judge scrutinized the grounds for Namdeo’s transfer and the legal provisions under the POSH Act. The court observed that while Section 12 of the POSH Act does provide for the transfer of either party during the pendency of proceedings, such transfers must be based on the recommendation of the internal complaints committee. In this case, the court found that no such recommendation had been made by the committee.

The Court noted that the internal committee proceedings had reached a standstill, primarily due to the complainant’s refusal to cooperate with the inquiry. Citing a letter dated July 1, 2024, from the complainant, the Court highlighted that she had expressed a lack of trust in both the internal and local committees, demanding that the inquiry be conducted by a state-level committee. The complainant, however, did not provide any specific reasons for her mistrust in the existing committee.

The Bench observed that the complainant’s refusal to participate in the inquiry had brought the proceedings to a halt. Despite this, the authorities recommended the transfer of Namdeo, a move the court deemed to be unwarranted. The Court also took issue with the fact that the transfer was sought to be justified under Section 12 of the POSH Act, even though the section clearly stipulates that such transfers should be based on the committee’s recommendation. The court pointed out that no such recommendation existed in Namdeo’s case.

The Court noted that the internal complaints committee had been reconstituted multiple times—first in October 2023, and again in May and June 2024—without any progress being made in the inquiry. The court further observed that the committee had recorded the complainant’s lack of cooperation in the proceedings, which had led to the inquiry being indefinitely stalled.

Referring to the July 1 letter from the complainant, the Court remarked, "It appears that the intervenor has tried to take undue advantage of the mere pendency of the POSH Act proceedings to get the petitioner transferred and then bringing the proceedings to an indefinite halt." It also emphasized that Namdeo’s transfer, made on the grounds of the complainant’s non-cooperation and stalled inquiry, was a violation of his rights.

While quashing the transfer order, the court clarified that its decision did not preclude the authorities from taking appropriate administrative actions in the future. It granted liberty to the respondents (the police department and the state) to transfer or post Namdeo to any other office within Jabalpur city, ensuring that the workplace environment remained cordial during the pendency of the proceedings under the POSH Act.

"Thus, this Court grants liberty to the respondents to transfer, post, or attach the petitioner to any other office or establishment within Jabalpur city only during the pendency of the proceedings under the POSH Act, so that a cordial atmosphere can be maintained in the office," the Court said. This arrangement, the Court reasoned, would not cause undue disturbance in Namdeo’s professional or personal life.

Cause Title: Shankarlal Namdeo Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate Brijesh Kumar Choubey

Respondent: Advocate Monu V. John

Intervenor: Senior Advocate Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, Advocate Ankit Chopra

Click here to read/download the Order


Justice Vivek JainMadhya Pradesh High CourtPOSH Act

Sukriti Mishra