Introduction:

This petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner sought the following reliefs:

1. A writ of Certiorari be issued to quash the report issued by the Internal Committee (IC) against the petitioner on the complaint dated 16 October 2017.
2. A writ of Mandamus be issued to constitute a new IC which can hear the case again.

During the petition, the petitioner sought a modification, which was granted by the Court, as a result, the petitioner filed an amended petition and sought the following reliefs:

1. A writ of Certiorari be issued to quash the report issued by the IC on the complaint dated 16 October 2017.
2. An appropriate writ be issued to quash the complaint dated 15 September 2017 and the proceedings thereon.

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner started working as a stenographer/Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the Income Tax Department in 1991 and was later promoted to the post of Office Superintendent. In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 4 (hereinafter “Respondent”) filed a complaint against the petitioner in 2016 alleging that the petitioner was under the influence of intoxicants and watching videos in the office. This complaint was withdrawn in February 2017 as the Respondent was unable to substantiate the same. However, Respondent subsequently filed an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, resulting in registration of FIR in which the petitioner was charged under Section 354 IPC. In this FIR, the petitioner was acquitted on 6th September 2018. Then, on 9th February 2021, the petitioner received information through WhatsApp about the complaint dated 16th October 2017, which alleged that the petitioner had sexually assaulted her on 25th April 2016.

On the basis of this complaint, IC prepared its report dated 25th February 2021, recommending a penalty of Rs 1 lakh on the petitioner and disciplinary proceedings against him.

Petitioner’s contention:

The petitioner argued in the petition that the entire proceedings of IC was wrong, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner also argued that the complaint was filed belatedly as the complaint dated 16th October 2017 was based on the incident of 25th April 2016, which was after the prescribed time limit of 3 months. Further, the petitioner also stated that he had already been acquitted in 2018 and repetition of the complaint was improper.

Respondent’s contention:

Respondent filed their objections and submitted that the IC had validly initiated proceedings under the POSH Act 2013 relating to Sexual Harassment. Respondent 4, however, contended that no decision had yet been taken against the complaint, and also admitted that the petitioner was accused of sexual harassment in FIR but was acquitted by the court.

Court’s observations:

The court first considered the validity of the complaint in this case. The court cited Section 9(1) of the 2013 Act, according to which a complaint of sexual harassment at workplace must be made within 3 months. This period can be extended by another 3 months only if the circumstances are such that the woman faced any impediment in filing the complaint. The Court found that the complaint filed on 16 October 2017 was in reference to the incident of 25^th April 2016, which was outside the time limit. Moreover, the petitioner had already been acquitted in 2018.

The Court also referred to the judgment of the Kerala High Court, which held that complaints filed with a delay of more than 3 months cannot be considered. The Hon’ble Court observed that “that the authority under the Act of 2013, had no power to act upon a complaint and pass orders thereon filed before it, beyond the condonable period of limitation of 3 months provided under proviso 2 of Section 9(1)”

Court’s decision:

The Court found that the complaint filed by Respondent was legally invalid, as it was filed after the prescribed time of 3 months. Based on this, the action taken by the IC, and the recommendations made thereon, were also illegal and invalid. The Court quashed the complaint and the recommendations of the IC.

The Hon’ble Court stated “Under these circumstances, the complaint filed by Respondent 4 herein against the petitioner herein under the Act of 2013 on 16th of October 2017 regarding an alleged incident dated 25th of April 2016 indisputably could not have been either entertained or else taken cognizance of by the ICC and dealt with thereafter”

The petition was ultimately allowed and the complaint filed on the incident of 25 April 2016 and the recommendations made by the IC were quashed.

Credits: Deeksha Rai